Also a naughty boy
As you might recall, Texas Attorney General (and noted pen pilferer) Ken Paxton and state Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney) are getting divorced after 38 years of marriage. Angela Paxton announced on X.com in early July that she initiated the divorce “on biblical grounds” and “in light of recent discoveries.” Ken asked for “prayers and privacy.” Not long after the filing, Angela Paxton also asked that the proceedings be sealed. On Thursday, the watchdog nonprofit Campaign for Accountability filed a motion in Collin County to unseal those records, citing the fact that both Paxtons are public officials “who collectively represent more than 31 million Texans.”
The organization points out that the divorce proceedings follow an alleged affair that became widely known after seven attorneys from the AG’s office reportedly told the FBI that their boss had been using his office to benefit his mistress and to conceal evidence of the affair. Some of those employees were fired, which prompted a whistleblower lawsuit that was settled. When Paxton asked for state funds to pay the settlement, it triggered an ethics investigation, leading to impeachment proceedings. The vote to acquit him fell along party lines for the most part. The Campaign for Accountability argues that those events, plus reports about the Paxtons’ homestead exemption claims on multiple homes, are good reasons for unsealing the couple’s divorce records.
“Law and precedent overwhelmingly support unsealing the Paxtons’ divorce records in the interest of public knowledge. Courts have routinely unsealed records in similar cases involving elected officials, and we are asking this Court to do the same,” Campaign for Accountability executive director Michelle Kuppersmith said in a statement. “Ken Paxton is the top law enforcement officer in Texas and now a U.S. Senate candidate. The public has every right to information that may reflect upon his character.”
You can read the motion here.
See here and here for the background. I don’t know if this is a serious effort with legal merit or just a huge troll, but either way I’m here for it. We deserve to know. It would help if Angela Paxton could find it in her heart to be less forgiving and not oppose this motion. But either way, unseal the records. Whatever is in there – and I freely admit this could be a “Geraldo opens Capone’s vault” situation – let us in so we can see.
The motion to unseal the Paxton divorce file looks very professional and was filed by an attorney. It’s actually a pleading AND motion. The purpose of the plea/pleading is to establish party status in the case to get a hearing on the merits (i.e. whether there are sound reasons for sealing records).
This filing was initially rejected because the clerk insisted on charging them the fee for a normal intervention (usually under rule 60 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure).
As of this morning (9/9/2025) – several days retarded – the plea & motion is on the trial court docket for Case No. 468-54065-2025, In the Matter of the Marriage of Angela Suzanne Paxton and Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr.
This intervention is for the express purpose of unsealing the records. See TRCP 76a.
The docket does not reflect that a hearing has been set. It will be interesting to see which judge will preside over the hearing. Several have already recused themselves.
SIMILAR DIVORCE (UN) SEALING CASE
Wayne Dolcefine recently made a stink about his intervention in another high-profile divorce case being thwarted by a retired judge appointed for the occasion. He sued the clerk (for blocking all access to the file in that case, even docket info) and sought mandamus relief against the judge in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.
You can read the appellate opinion here:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?scidkt=7636870809242912667&as_sdt=2&hl=en
“We hold that a media entity has a common-law right to access court records in a divorce case, but that right is not absolute but limited. Dolcefino Media invoked this right by its petition in intervention and motion to unseal, which demonstrate standing, and the trial court has jurisdiction to consider and decide the extent to which access ought to be allowed. We thus conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dolcefino Media’s petition in intervention and motion to unseal records for lack of jurisdiction.”
IN RE DOLCEFINO COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, No. 14-25-00555-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 28, 2025) (mandamus conditionally granted).
Meanwhile, the Paxtons have file a Rule 11 agreement (agreement between parties in pending litigation) regarding mediation. That’s one way to keep the proverbial dirty laundry out of the court file. What happens in mediation stays in mediation (at least is supposed to), except for a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) perhaps, if one is reached. That might be subject to being unsealed, possibly with some redactions for specific sensitive bits of information, such as financial account numbers.