Judge blocks Paxton's ActBlue suit as retaliatory
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday blocked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from pursuing his fraud lawsuit against ActBlue, ruling the Democratic fundraising platform was likely targeted in retaliation for backing his Senate opponent.
U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns granted ActBlue a preliminary injunction in a 15-page ruling, finding the company was likely to prove the suit violated the First Amendment's free-speech protections, according to Courthouse News.
Stearns, a Clinton appointee in the District of Massachusetts, cited Paxton's "well-known history of filing retaliatory lawsuits" and tied the case to the Texas attorney general's U.S. Senate race against Democratic state Representative James Talarico.
"The truth is plain and captured in Paxton's own declarations: The lawsuit was filed in retaliation for (and in an attempt to suppress) ActBlue's efforts to fund Talarico's campaign," Stearns ruled.
Court found 'overwhelming' evidence of bad faith
The order bars Paxton from continuing to litigate the Texas case and from "bringing any new state civil enforcement action premised on the same conduct," Courthouse News reported.
Stearns wrote that the timing of events "speaks volumes," noting the investigation "sat dormant for more than a year and a half, until the day after Talarico announced his fundraising results," according to JURIST.
ActBlue, which sued in Boston to stop Paxton, argued his complaint was "rife with false and inflammatory allegations" and was filed soon after a $2 million funding day for Talarico, UPI reported.
The judge rejected Paxton's contention that ActBlue had misrepresented itself to consumers. "The platform does nothing more than facilitate political donations from private donors, who seek out its convenience, anonymity and aggregation of the benefit bestowed on chosen political candidates," Stearns ruled.
He pointed to Paxton's own words as evidence. In a fundraising email sent after the suit was filed, Paxton called ActBlue "the Democrats' shadowy digital fundraising network" and said it had raised "eye-popping sums online" for Talarico, according to Courthouse News.
"Paxton's public statements in the wake of filing the case against ActBlue reveal his true motivation," Stearns wrote, adding that Paxton "did not hesitate in drawing a connection between the lawsuit and his candidacy for Senate." The ruling echoes broader debates over how anti-SLAPP laws protect free speech from litigation aimed at silencing critics.
Jurisdiction and abstention arguments rejected
Paxton had sought to dismiss ActBlue's federal suit, arguing the Massachusetts court lacked personal jurisdiction over him in his official capacity as a Texas official, JURIST reported.
The court disagreed, finding Paxton had subjected himself to its jurisdiction by serving demands on ActBlue and reviewing documents at the company's headquarters in Somerville, Massachusetts. "The exercise of jurisdiction is both reasonable and constitutional," the court wrote, per JURIST.
Stearns also rejected Paxton's argument that the court should abstain under Younger v. Harris, which generally counsels federal courts against interfering in ongoing state proceedings. The judge agreed with ActBlue that bad-faith prosecution is a recognized exception and that such evidence was "overwhelming" in the case. Federal courts have increasingly served as a check on contested official action in recent litigation.
A long-running probe
Paxton opened his investigation into ActBlue in 2023 at President Donald Trump's urging, examining whether the platform enabled donor fraud through gift cards and prepaid debit cards. Reports differ on the precise start date, with Courthouse News citing 2023 and JURIST citing December 2023.
He formally filed suit in Texas state court in April under the Texas Deceptive Practices Act, alleging the platform allowed potentially fraudulent international contributions. State attorneys general wield broad consumer-protection enforcement powers, a dynamic explored in coverage of figures like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
ActBlue, a Massachusetts-based company founded in 2004, has generated approximately $19 billion in donations, primarily from small donors, JURIST reported.
ActBlue chief legal officer Lawrence Oliver praised the decision as one in which a court "clearly chose the Constitution over partisan politics," according to JURIST. The order freezes Paxton's case as the underlying litigation proceeds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the judge actually order?
U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns granted ActBlue a preliminary injunction barring Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from continuing his state fraud lawsuit and from filing any new state civil enforcement action based on the same conduct.
Why did the court call the lawsuit retaliatory?
Stearns found "overwhelming" evidence of bad faith, citing the suit's timing the day after a record Talarico fundraising day, Paxton's own fundraising emails, and his public statements linking the case to his Senate campaign.
What is ActBlue?
ActBlue is a Massachusetts-based online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates and causes. Founded in 2004, it has raised approximately $19 billion, primarily from small donors.
Can Paxton appeal the ruling?
The order is a preliminary injunction issued early in the federal litigation. Such rulings can typically be appealed, and the underlying federal case between ActBlue and Paxton continues. No appeal had been reported in the cited sources.
Sources
Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.