Paxton, Ken

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares161 Views

    Google Agrees to Pay $1.4 Billion to Settle 2 Privacy Lawsuits

    by

    The Texas attorney general brought the cases in 2022 under state laws.Google agreed to pay $1.4 billion to the State of Texas on Friday to settle two lawsuits accusing it of violating the privacy of state residents by tracking their locations and searches, as well as collecting their facial recognition information.The state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, who secured the settlement, brought the suits in 2022 under Texas laws related to data privacy and deceptive trade practices. Less than a year ago, he reached a $1.4 billion settlement with Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, over allegations it had illegally tagged users’ faces on its site.Google’s settlement is the latest legal setback for the tech giant. Over the past two years, Google has lost a string of antitrust cases after being found to have a monopoly over its app store, search engine and advertising technology. It has spent the past three weeks in the search case trying to fend off a U.S. government request to break up its business.“Big Tech is not above the law,” Mr. Paxton said in a statement.José Castañeda, a Google spokesman, said the company had already changed its product policies. “This settles a raft of old claims, many of which have already been resolved elsewhere,” he said.Privacy issues have become a major source of tension between tech giants and regulators in recent years. In the absence of a federal privacy law, states such as Texas and Washington have passed laws to curb the collection of facial, voice and other biometric data.Google and Meta have been the highest-profile companies challenged under those laws. Texas’ law, called Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier, requires companies to ask permission before using features like facial or voice recognition technologies. The law allows the state to impose damages of up to $25,000 per violation.The lawsuit filed under that law focused on the Google Photos app, which allowed people to search for photos of a particular person; Google’s Next camera, which could send alerts when it recognized visitors at a door; and Google Assistant, a virtual assistant that could learn up to six users’ voices and answer their questions.Mr. Paxton filed a separate lawsuit that accused Google of misleading Texans by tracking their personal location data, even after they thought they had disabled that feature. He added a complaint to that suit alleging that Google’s private browsing setting, which it called Incognito mode, wasn’t actually private. Those cases were brought under Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Ken Paxton Says He Will Challenge Senator John Cornyn in 2026

      by

      Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, officially announced on Tuesday that he was challenging Senator John Cornyn in the Republican primary next year, setting up what is likely to be the most contentious and expensive intraparty contest of 2026.Mr. Paxton, a firebrand conservative litigant who has sought to strongly align himself with President Trump, had been teasing a run against Mr. Cornyn for weeks. He all but announced his intentions in an interview with The New York Times last week.On Tuesday, Mr. Paxton unveiled a website for his nascent campaign, prominently featuring a photo of him posing with Mr. Trump, and he officially announced his run in an interview on Fox News.“It’s definitely time for a change in Texas,” Mr. Paxton said in the interview with Laura Ingraham. In a post on social media, he promised to “fight for President Trump’s agenda and take a sledgehammer to the D.C. establishment.”Mr. Paxton has tried to position himself as the preferred candidate of the Republican primary base in Texas, a conservative electorate that has appeared receptive to his campaign in recent polling.Mr. Cornyn, realizing the looming challenge, announced his own campaign last month in a video that heavily featured his own connections to Mr. Trump. In recent days he rolled out an endorsement from the union for U.S. Border Patrol agents, an important show of support for conservative voters who list border security among their top issues.In response to Mr. Paxton’s announcement, the Cornyn campaign pointed to the senator’s voting record, which it said aligned with President Trump more than nearly every other senator. The campaign referred to Mr. Paxton as “a fraud.”“This will be a spirited campaign and we assure Texans they will have a real choice when this race is over,” the campaign said in a statement on Tuesday.Republican voters in Texas are well familiar with both Mr. Cornyn, who has been in state politics for four decades, and Mr. Paxton, a former state representative and state senator now in his third term as attorney general.Mr. Paxton survived an impeachment trial in 2023, initiated by Texas House Republicans, over allegations of corruption and abuse of office that were lodged against him by some of his former top aides.Those aides also filed a whistle-blower suit against him over their firings. Late last week a judge sided with them, saying that Mr. Paxton had admitted to the allegations and that the state should pay $6.6 million to settle the claims. Mr. Paxton has vowed to appeal. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Former Aides to Ken Paxton Win $6.6 Million in Whistle-Blower Case

      by

      A judge found that four whistle-blowers who accused Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, of corruption and reported him to the F.B.I. were unjustly fired.A judge awarded a total of $6.6 million to four former high-level aides to Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, who claimed that they were unduly fired after reporting him to federal investigators and accusing him of corruption in 2020.The plaintiffs — Blake Brickman, Mark Penley, David Maxwell and Ryan Vassar — proved that the attorney general’s office violated the state’s whistle-blower act, Judge Catherine Mauzy of a district court in Travis County ruled on Friday.Each plaintiff was awarded between $1 million and more than $2 million for lost wages, emotional pain, legal fees and other costs associated with the trial.“The Court finds that Plaintiffs have proved liability, damages, and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees by a preponderance of the evidence,” Judge Mauzy wrote in her ruling.Judge Mauzy also noted that Mr. Paxton never disputed any issue or fact in the case, opting not to contest his office’s liability. Mr. Paxton did not testify.Tom Nesbitt, a lawyer for Mr. Brickman, celebrated the decision.“Yesterday’s judgment is the natural and intended consequence of Ken Paxton’s choice to surrender rather than fight the whistle-blowers’ claims in court,” he said in a statement on Saturday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Again Blocks U.S. From Cutting Texas Border Wire Along Rio Grande

      by

      The injunction is the second time that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has sided with Texas in a yearlong dispute over barbed wire around the city of Eagle Pass.For the second time, a federal appeals court has limited the Biden administration’s authority to cut barbed wire that Texas authorities have erected along the country’s southern border to deter migrants from crossing into the United States.But the ruling, issued Wednesday, required something of Texas authorities as well. The court order would protect the state’s concertina wire so as long as federal agents had “necessary access” to both sides of it — including in Shelby Park, a local park in the border city of Eagle Pass that the state seized and kicked federal authorities out of this year.The ruling is the latest development in an ongoing clash between state and federal authorities for control over border enforcement, as Texas has repeatedly tried to effectively set its own immigration policy. Since 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott has been deploying state law enforcement and National Guard members along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of an initiative called Operation Lone Star. Texas’ efforts to arrest migrants under a new state law and to place floating barriers along the Rio Grande have also led to court battles.The legal dispute over barbed wire began in October 2023 when Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, sued the Biden administration, claiming that U.S. Border Patrol agents were illegally destroying the state’s concertina wire fencing. The state, Mr. Paxton said, had the right to curb what he called an “alien surge.”A district court judge declined to give Texas the injunction it requested, finding that the federal government was likely to win the ongoing case because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that can often shield state and federal governments from lawsuits. In December 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a temporary order limiting the Biden administration’s ability to remove the wire only in cases of medical emergencies. That ruling was vacated by the Supreme Court in January, sending the case back to the lower courts.Wednesday’s order, from the Fifth Circuit, rejected claims by the Biden administration that sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution meant that Texas couldn’t challenge federal actions along the border. Texas, the appeals court found, was seeking “not to ‘regulate’ Border Patrol, but only to safeguard its own property.”The Fifth Circuit has been hailed by some Trump-aligned Republicans as a model for the future of conservative jurisprudence. Three of its judges are often discussed as possible Supreme Court nominees during President-elect Donald J. Trump’s second term. One of those three, Stuart Kyle Duncan, wrote Wednesday’s ruling.In a post on X, Mr. Paxton called Wednesday’s ruling a “huge win,” and said that his office had “fought every step of the way for Texas sovereignty and security.”The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Tosses Out Biden Program For Undocumented Spouses

      by

      The ruling issued by a federal judge in Texas struck down a new initiative aimed at helping undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens stay in the country.A federal judge in Texas on Thursday struck down a new Biden administration program that sought to provide a path to U.S. citizenship for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants married to American citizens.The ruling, issued by Judge J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, came months after 16 Republican-led states, led by Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, filed a lawsuit claiming that the administration lacked the legal authority to enact the program. In August, Judge Barker temporarily blocked the initiative, just days after it had gone into place.On Thursday, in a 74-page decision, he explained that the Biden administration did not have the authority to create the program, which would have been unlikely to remain in place after President-elect Trump took office in January.The Biden administration started the initiative, known as Keeping Families Together, in August, allowing undocumented immigrants who were married to U.S. citizens and had been in the United States for 10 years or more a chance to gain a green card without leaving the country.Read the Judge’s RulingA federal judge in Texas struck down a new Biden administration program that sought to provide a path to U.S. citizenship for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants married to American citizens.Read Document 74 pagesGenerally, immigrants who have entered the United States illegally must leave the country to complete the green card process, which can take years. The Biden program, which was in place for a week, allowed those who were married to U.S. citizens to remain in the country by granting them what the immigration system refers to as “parole,” a status that also protected them from deportation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Judge’s Ruling

      by

      Case 6:24-cv-00306-JCB Document 120 Filed 11/07/24 Page 6 of 74 PageID #: 2962
      a foreign port or place or from an outlying possession.” Id.
      § 101(a)(13), 66 Stat. at 167.³
      c. Obtaining LPR status. – As today, status as an alien law-
      fully admitted for permanent residence (LPR or “green card” sta-
      tus) enabled an alien’s eventual naturalization as a U.S. citizen. Id.
      § 318, 66 Stat. at 244 (“no person shall be naturalized unless he
      has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent res-
      idence”), codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1429. The INA of 1952
      defined two processes for obtaining LPR status.
      First, an alien could apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. con-
      sulate or embassy abroad, wait for one to become available and to
      issue, and then travel to a U.S. port of entry and be admitted for
      permanent residence under that visa. Id. §§ 101(a)(9) (consular
      officer), 203 (numerical limits), 211 (admission), 221 (consular is-
      suance), 66 Stat. at 166-67, 178–79, 181-82, 191–92. Aliens often
      had to wait their turn for immigrant visas to become available be-
      cause of annual limits on visa issuance. See id. § 201, 66 Stat. at
      175-76, codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1151.4
      Second, an alien lawfully admitted to the United States in one
      status could, while here, adjust to LPR status. Under INA
      § 245(a), an alien “lawfully admitted to the United States as a
      bona fide nonimmigrant,” and who so entered the country, could
      petition for adjustment to LPR status upon certain showings re-
      lated to immigrant visas. Id. § 245(a), 66 Stat. at 217. But an alien’s
      parole from detention pending exclusion proceedings was not “an
      admission of the alien,” id. § 212(d)(5), 66 Stat. at 188, and thus
      did not allow the alien to petition to adjust to LPR status.
      ³ One exception was made, providing that LPR aliens were not “regarded”
      as “making an entry into the United States for purposes of the immigration
      laws” if they did not intend or reasonably expect to depart from the United
      States in the first place. Id.; see Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963) (inter-
      preting that clause). The need for that exception confirms that the term “en-
      try” itself refers to a physical movement into the country.
      4 Certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, however, have been ex-
      empted from immigrant-visa quotas. E.g., id. § 101(a)(27)(A), 66 Stat. at 169
      (“nonquota immigrants”); id. § 201(c), 66 Stat. at 176.
      -6- More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Sues for Access to Records of Women Seeking Out-of-State Abortions

      by

      The lawsuit takes aim at federal privacy rules, including one enacted this year that Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, called “a backdoor attempt at weakening Texas’ laws.”Texas has sued to block federal rules that prohibit investigators from viewing the medical records of women who travel out of state to seek abortions where the procedure is legal.The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in Federal District Court in Lubbock, targets medical privacy regulations that were issued in 2000, and takes aim at a rule issued in April that specifically bans disclosing medical records for criminal or civil investigations into “the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing or facilitating reproductive health care.”Texas bans abortions in almost all circumstances. Women are not subject to criminal prosecution for obtaining abortions, but state law imposes penalties of as much as life in prison for those who aid in obtaining abortions.The lawsuit claims that the privacy rules ignore federal law that lets states view medical records “for law enforcement purposes.”In a statement on Wednesday, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, called the April rule “a backdoor attempt at weakening Texas’ laws.” He added: “The Biden administration’s motive is clear: to subvert lawful state investigations on issues that the courts have said the states may investigate.”Officials with the federal Health and Human Services Department did not comment on the lawsuit, but told The Associated Press that the Biden administration “remains committed to protecting reproductive health privacy and ensuring that no woman’s medical records are used against her.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Texas House Speaker Survives Challenge From Hard Right

      by

      The speaker of the Texas House, Dade Phelan, won renomination in a runoff on Tuesday, surviving a bruising Republican primary challenge from a party activist and first-time candidate who was backed by former President Donald J. Trump and his Texas supporters.The race, in a southeast Texas district that includes part of the city of Beaumont, was a bitter political showdown among some of the most powerful players in Texas politics, and was likely to have been one of the most expensive ever for a Texas House seat.Millions poured in to the campaigns during the primary, including large donations from West Texas oil and gas billionaires and out-of-state school-choice advocates who backed the challenger, David Covey. For his part, Mr. Phelan had help from deep-pocketed donors like Miriam Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate and widow of the Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson.Mr. Covey, a technical adviser to the oil and gas industry who has described himself as a “very committed Christian and a conservative,” led Mr. Phelan in the first round of voting in March, when neither candidate won a majority.But during the runoff, Mr. Phelan rallied his supporters and campaign contributors, significantly out-raising his opponent through the middle of May.“We came this close,” Mr. Covey said in a speech to supporters in Orange, Texas. He added that even in defeat his campaign had started a movement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Judge Blocks Paxton’s Request for Transgender Minors’ Records

      by

      An L.G.B.T.Q. organization had sued after the state’s attorney general asked for documents on children receiving gender-affirming care.A judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Texas attorney general from forcing an L.G.B.T.Q. organization to turn over documents on transgender minors and the gender-affirming care they may be receiving.In Texas, medical care for gender transition is prohibited for minors under a law passed last year. As part of an investigation into violations of the ban, the office of Attorney General Ken Paxton demanded early last month that the nonprofit PFLAG National, which supports families in accessing gender-affirming care for children, provide information on minors in the state who may have received such treatments. But on Friday, Judge Maria Cantú Hexsel of Travis County District Court issued an injunction against Mr. Paxton, just days after PFLAG sued to block the request, saying turning over the documents would cause “irreparable injury, loss or damage” to the group. The judge added that such an ask would infringe on the group’s constitutional rights and that its members would be subject to “gross invasions” of privacy.In a statement, PFLAG’s lawyers, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said they were “grateful that the court saw the harm the attorney general’s office’s intrusive demands posed.”Mr. Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday’s order. But he has previously argued that the information from PFLAG is “highly relevant” to his investigation into medical providers who he says are trying to work around the ban on gender-affirming care for minors. “Any organization seeking to violate this law, commit fraud or weaponize science and medicine against children will be held accountable,” he said in a statement. The judge scheduled a hearing for March 25 to give the attorney general a chance to argue against the injunction. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More