Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, once a vocal critic of litigation tactics that manipulate judicial venues, is facing growing scrutiny from legal experts and defense attorneys who argue his office is now engaging in a pattern of “forum shopping.” The practice involves strategically filing lawsuits in specific counties—often those with limited connections to the allegations—to secure more favorable judges or juries, a tactic Paxton himself previously condemned in federal legal filings.
The controversy centers on a series of recent high-profile lawsuits, including an ongoing effort to hold pharmaceutical manufacturers liable for claims that Tylenol usage during pregnancy is linked to autism and ADHD. While the attorney general’s office maintains it is acting within the scope of state consumer protection laws, critics argue that the selection of rural, distant venues undermines the integrity of the Texas judicial system. This shift has prompted a wave of legal challenges and raised significant questions about the standard of practice for the state’s top legal officer.
The Evolution of Venue Strategy
In October, the Texas Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit against Johnson &. Johnson, Kenvue Brands and Kenvue Inc., alleging the companies failed to adequately warn pregnant women about potential risks associated with acetaminophen. The suit, which mirrors arguments previously raised by political figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was filed in the state district court of Panola County. Panola County, a rural community near the Louisiana border, has a population of approximately 23,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The choice of venue has drawn sharp rebukes from defense counsel. During a hearing at the Panola County courthouse, Kim Bueno, an attorney representing the drugmakers, argued that the claims had been repeatedly rejected in other jurisdictions. The lawsuit was filed in a venue that lacks the extensive experience typically associated with large-scale, complex pharmaceutical litigation, prompting accusations that the office was seeking a specific judicial environment rather than a neutral, appropriate forum.
This strategy marks a stark departure from Paxton’s documented stance in 2017. In a legal brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Paxton argued that forum shopping in federal courts “has the pernicious effect of reducing confidence in the fairness and neutrality of our Nation’s justice system,” as documented in official Supreme Court dockets. Legal scholars, including Michael Ariens of the St. Mary’s University School of Law, have noted the apparent hypocrisy in the office’s current litigation tactics compared to its previous positions on judicial fairness.
Legislative Intent and Legal Boundaries
Texas law, specifically under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, generally requires that lawsuits be filed in counties where a “substantial part” of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. This framework was established in the 1990s to curb the practice of plaintiffs’ attorneys flocking to specific counties to secure favorable verdicts, a phenomenon often described as the “Wild West” of litigation.
The Attorney General’s office has utilized a degree of flexibility afforded by consumer protection statutes to justify its venue selections, arguing that filing is permissible in any county where a defendant conducts business. However, this interpretation has been pushed to its limits. In a 2023 lawsuit against the gaming platform Roblox, the state selected King County—a rural area with a population of roughly 200 people—primarily citing that residents had internet access to the service.
The 15th Court of Appeals has recently intervened in several of these cases, transferring lawsuits to more appropriate venues such as Travis County, the traditional home for state-level litigation. In a ruling regarding a case against AstraZeneca, the appellate court concluded that the initial filing in Harrison County failed to provide sufficient evidence that the alleged lawbreaking occurred in that venue, effectively overruling the trial judge’s decision to keep the case in the rural jurisdiction.
The Tylenol Litigation and Procedural Hurdles
The litigation against Tylenol manufacturers has faced significant setbacks. In the Panola County proceedings, Judge LeAnn Rafferty dismissed five of the six claims brought by the state, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction over entities that did not manufacture or sell the product within Texas. Despite this, the state’s office continued to pursue the matter, filing a subsequent action in Bailey County.
In Bailey County, the state secured a temporary order requiring the pharmaceutical companies to register with the Secretary of State, a move that would have technically bolstered the state’s jurisdiction. However, the order was later withdrawn after defense attorneys, including former state solicitor general Aaron Nielson, challenged the move as an attempt to relitigate already dismissed claims. The Texas Secretary of State’s office maintains standard registration protocols for foreign entities, but the use of such administrative requirements as a tool for venue-based litigation remains a point of contention.
Legal observers have warned that the current approach risks damaging the credibility of the Attorney General’s office. Paul Gugliuzza, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, has noted that the practice of referencing voided court orders in subsequent filings could lead to sanctions. “If you knowingly are presenting false information to the court, that is textbook sanctionable conduct,” Gugliuzza observed regarding the office’s recent legal maneuvers.
What Happens Next
The ongoing lawsuits in Panola and Bailey counties are currently awaiting further rulings from the 15th Court of Appeals, which will determine the final venue and procedural validity of the claims. These appellate decisions are expected to set a critical precedent for how the state’s consumer protection laws are interpreted regarding venue selection in the digital age.
As the legal community watches these developments, the central question remains whether the state’s current litigation strategy will be upheld or whether it will be curtailed by higher courts. For those following the case, official updates and filings can be monitored through the Texas Judicial Branch website, which provides access to appellate dockets and public records.
What are your thoughts on the use of venue selection in state-led litigation? Share your perspective in the comments below.
Keep reading