Obvious headline, but in a more specific context.
In 2023-24, Paxton used state deceptive-practices laws to chase ActBlue, serving various document requests, civil investigative demands, and subpoena; the theory seems to be that ActBlue is not sufficiently determining donor eligibility, especially by taking donations via gift card. He revived those efforts, including commencing a civil enforcement action, earlier this year when James Tallarico filed a report showing successful fundraising. Paxton touted the lawsuit on several podcasts and in his Senate campaign communications, linking it ActBlue as a bad liberal organization and to his candidacy. ActBlue then filed a § 1983, seeking to enjoin the state action as retaliatory.
The District of Massachusetts (where ActBlue is located and where Paxton served the subpoenas) declined Younger abstention. The court skipped the basic analysis and jumped to the bad faith/harassment exception, finding “the evidence of bad faith is sufficiently overwhelming to qualify this as one of the rare cases where the exception should apply.” The court cited: 1) timing (Paxton did not renew efforts until it became clear Tallarico was raising substantial sums of money); 2)absence of a specific theory of liability, especially given that ActBlue’s speech is likely political rather than commercial; 3) Paxton’s history of retaliatory enforcement actions; 4) Paxton linking these efforts to his Senate campaign, suggesting retaliation against ActBlue for funding Paxton’s rival, rather than a legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
The court granted a preliminary injunction. The same factors justifying non-abstention showed that the speech was protected and that Paxton acted with a retaliatory motive.