The legal battle surrounding Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his First Assistant Brent Webster, has taken a significant turn as the Supreme Court of Texas agreed to review charges of politically motivated legal action against them. Following the contentious aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, Paxton initiated a lawsuit challenging the election outcomes in four states, a move that the State Bar of Texas saw as sanction-worthy.

Marking the latest development, the State Bar launched a disciplinary action raising concerns about the constitutionality of such sanctions, going as far as accusing the legal body of encroaching on the Texas Constitution's Separation of Powers clause. Attorney General Paxton voiced his confidence in the light of this recent development, saying, "I’m pleased SCOTX will take up this case of blatant, unfounded weaponization of the law, and I am confident that First Assistant Attorney General Webster will prevail," as reported in the statement issued by the Office of the Texas Attorney General on June 14th.

The State Bar’s pursuit of disciplinary action against Paxton and Webster has been characterized as an infringement upon the principles of sovereign immunity. This assertion was supported by seventeen attorneys general nationwide, who have collectively condemned what they consider to be a misuse of legal authority by the State Bar of Texas.

On June 4th, the Office of the Attorney General filed a petition for the Texas Supreme Court to review the dispute, aiming to halt the proceedings they have deemed an act of "lawfare." With the high court's decision to grant review, the validity and scope of the State Bar's actions will soon come under scrutiny. The complete order detailing the Supreme Court's decision to grant review can be accessed through the Office of the Texas Attorney General's website.