A federal judge has barred Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from pursuing his lawsuit against ActBlue, a major Democratic online fundraising platform. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns ruled Thursday that the case amounted to retaliation for ActBlue’s political activities supporting Paxton’s opponent in the 2026 U.S. Senate race.
Core Facts & Immediate Action
- Judge Richard Stearns issued a preliminary injunction blocking Paxton’s lawsuit, siding with ActBlue’s argument that the case infringed on its First Amendment free-speech protections.
- The ruling found that Paxton’s lawsuit was filed in bad faith and targeted ActBlue for fundraising on behalf of James Talarico, Paxton’s Democratic rival in the Texas Senate race.
Deeper Dive & Context
Background of the Lawsuit
Paxton opened an investigation into ActBlue in 2023, examining whether the platform violated state law by enabling donor fraud. In April 2024, he filed a lawsuit in Tarrant County, Texas, seeking to prohibit ActBlue from accepting contributions via gift cards and prepaid debit cards. Paxton alleged the platform had misled Congress and the public about its practices.
ActBlue’s Response
ActBlue countered that Paxton’s initial complaint was “rife with false and inflammatory allegations.” The platform argued that Paxton’s investigators began building a case against it just 24 hours after Talarico announced a $2 million fundraising haul. ActBlue filed a separate lawsuit in federal court, seeking to block Paxton’s state-level case.
Legal Rationale
Judge Stearns, a Clinton appointee, wrote in his 15-page order that Paxton’s lawsuit was an “adverse action” and that the evidence showed it was filed in retaliation for ActBlue’s fundraising efforts. The ruling emphasized that political fundraising is core to free speech and protected under the First Amendment.
Reactions & Next Steps
- Lawrence Oliver, ActBlue’s chief legal officer, called the ruling a confirmation that political fundraising is protected speech.
- Paxton’s office and ActBlue did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the preliminary injunction.
Long-Term Implications
The ruling could set a precedent for how state attorneys general investigate political fundraising platforms, particularly in cases where legal action is perceived as retaliatory. It also highlights ongoing tensions between state regulators and digital fundraising tools used by political campaigns.