A noteworthy judgment was issued on Tuesday as the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, accused of misrepresentation before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dallas Morning News reported that the court dismissed a complaint lodged against Webster, suggesting doubts regarding the proper jurisdiction of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to pursue penalties for Webster’s declarations.
The accusation against Webster contended that the First Assistant Attorney General lied to the U.S. Supreme Court while questioning the legitimacy of Biden's 2020 election victory. This charge was filed by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline back in 2022, asserting a violation of state ethics rules.
Webster was one of the signatories of a 2020 petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition, led by Attorney General Ken Paxton, hoped to nullify Biden's victory.
The court, however, denied the petition. Simultaneously, a parallel complaint was filed by the State Bar Commission against Paxton himself, alongside Webster's. Both Webster and Paxton advocated for the dismissal of these lawsuits in the lower courts.
In considering Webster’s case, Justice Evan Young wrote the court's majority opinion, questioning the commission's jurisdiction to seek penalties for statements delivered before a court.
He found that Brynne VanHettinga, the complainant against Webster, was neither a Texas resident nor an active member of the state bar. The lawsuit against Webster was also deemed to contravene the Texas Constitution's separation of powers standard.
The court's decision was not unanimous. Justice Jeff Boyd, with Justice Debra Lehrmann alongside him, offered a dissenting opinion.
While Boyd and Lehrmann dissented, six justices from the all-Republican court joined Young in the majority verdict.
Speaking about the ruling, Young questioned the jurisdiction of the state bar commission. He asked if it had the authority to solicit penalties for statements made to a court that had “substantial authority and many tools to address alleged violations of professional disciplinary rules”.
On his part, Webster expressed relief at the outcome of the case. "Thankfully, with President Trump back in the White House and these attempts to wage legal warfare against us defeated, we can finally get back to making Texas and America great again without distraction,” he stated.
Affirming his stance, Paxton described the case as a "witch hunt against the leadership of my office.”
Boyd's dissenting opinion contained critical observations about the court’s separation-of-powers jurisprudence.
He noted, “The Court’s freshly minted direct/collateral distinction is unheard of in separation-of-powers jurisprudence. It lacks both legal support and logical sense.” This sentiment resonated with Justice Lehrmann, who concurred with the dissent.
In response to the ruling, civil rights attorney Jim Harrington spoke on behalf of four former state bar presidents, 11 bar members, and Lawyers Defending American Democracy.
“Any other lawyer would be disciplined for such a flagrant ethics violation… This decision is a shameful abdication of the court’s role in Texas to keep sacred the principle that no one is above the law,” he declared.
