Texas AG Ken Paxton sues 5 cities over marijuana amnesty policies, cites drug’s reported links to ‘psychosis’

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed lawsuits against five Texas cities – Austin, Denton, San Marcos, Killeen and Elgin – over their marijuana amnesty and non-prosecution policies. 

The litigation charges that the five municipalities adopted ordinances or policies instructing police not to enforce Texas drug laws concerning possession and distribution of marijuana, which the state attorney general's office describes as "an illicit substance that psychologists have increasingly linked to psychosis and other negative consequences."

"I will not stand idly by as cities run by pro-crime extremists deliberately violate Texas law and promote the use of illicit drugs that harm our communities," Paxton said in a statement Wednesday. "This unconstitutional action by municipalities demonstrates why Texas must have a law to ‘follow the law.’ It’s quite simple: the legislature passes every law after a full debate on the issues, and we don’t allow cities the ability to create anarchy by picking and choosing the laws they enforce."

The ordinances notably prevent city funds from going toward or personnel from even testing suspected marijuana seized by police officers, with limited exceptions. 

The attorney general's office said Paxton "remains committed to maintaining law and order in Texas when cities violate the lawful statutes designed to protect the public from crime, drugs, and violence. He continues to seek accountability for the rogue district attorneys whose abuse of prosecutorial discretion has contributed to a deadly national crimewave." 

LAWYER FOR CALIFORNIA WOMAN AVOIDING JAIL IN MARIJUANA STABBING STANDS BY 'PSYCHOTIC' DEFENSE: 'NOT A CON JOB'

The lawsuits stress that Texas Local Government Code forbids any political subdivision from adopting "a policy under which the entity will not fully enforce laws relating to drugs." Further, the Texas Constitution notes that it is unlawful for municipalities to adopt ordinances that are inconsistent with the laws enacted by the Texas Legislature (Article 9, Section 5). 

Namely, with the Democratically-run city of Austin, Paxton's lawsuit takes issue with an order that became effective on July 3, 2020, instructing the Austin Police Department not to make an arrest or issue a citation for marijuana possession unless in the investigation of a violent felony or high priority felony-level narcotics case. 

A ballot measure known as Proposition A to further eliminate low-level marijuana enforcement later won the vote in 2022, and the City Council codified it into law as the Austin Freedom Act. 

In addition to limiting police from filing marijuana possession charges unless they come as part of a high-level probe or at the direction of a commander, the measure also states that no city funds or personnel shall be used to request, conduct, or obtain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) testing of any cannabis-related substance, except in some limited circumstances. It adds the caveat that the prohibition shall not limit the ability of police to conduct toxicology testing to ensure public safety, nor shall it limit THC testing for the purpose of any violent felony charge.

ALARMING NEW TREND IS EMERGING AS YOUNGER AMERICANS ESCHEW ALCOHOL ON DATES, GO MORE FOR CANNABIS

Austin, Denton, San Marcos, Killeen and Eligin are all considered "home-rule" jurisdictions, meaning they have the "full power of self-government" and do not need grants from the state legislature to enact local ordinances.

In Killeen, located next to the once embattled Fort Hood, since renamed Fort Cavazos, voters approved a Proposition A of their own in 2022. 

It similarly states that officers should not make arrests for marijuana possession or drug residue alone. If there is probable cause to believe a substance is marijuana, officers can seize the substance. But the ordinance requires that police then also write a detailed report and release the individual if possession of marijuana is the sole charge. 

In Denton, located in the Dallas Fort-Worth metro area, another similar measure enacted by City Council known as Proposition B says officers cannot issue citations or make arrests for Class A or B misdemeanor marijuana possession. Elgin, considered a suburb of Austin, and San Marcos, which sits on the corridor between Austin and San Antonio, also both adopted similar ordinances designed to stifle marijuana enforcement in conflict with state law, according to Paxton's lawsuits.

The litigation comes after headline-making news out of California, where a judge recently ruled a woman who stabbed her boyfriend 108 times before slicing her own neck as police tried to stop her will not serve any prison time because she had fallen into a pot-fueled psychosis after getting high on drugs at the time. 

Though unrelated, the marijuana lawsuits were filed just a day after the Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to temporarily halt Paxton's scheduled testimony in a whistleblower lawsuit that was at the heart of the impeachment charges brought against him in 2023, delaying what could have been the Republican’s first sworn statements on corruption allegations. 

Texas lawmaker calls for AG Ken Paxton impeachment inquiry to be reopened

A Texas state senator wants to reopen the impeachment case against state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

State Sen. Drew Springer, a Republican from Muenster, urged his colleagues in the Texas Senate to take a second look at impeachment charges against Paxton after the attorney general said he would not contest allegations in a whistleblower lawsuit. 

"He cannot admit guilt while claiming innocence," Springer wrote on X. "I urge the Lt. Gov & my Senate colleagues to consider reopening Paxton's impeachment. Paxton has not only admitted to violating the articles of impeachment, but he is exposing Texas taxpayers to a settlement of WELL OVER $3.3M. Texans deserve the truth!"

Paxton was acquitted in September of all impeachment articles filed against him for corruption and unfitness for office. He had faced accusations that he misused his political power to help real estate developer Nate Paul — allegations that stemmed from a lawsuit filed by four former employees who reported him to the FBI. 

TEXAS AG PAXTON ACQUITTED ON ALL IMPEACHMENT CHARGES: ‘THE TRUTH PREVAILED’

The whistleblowers — Blake Brickman, Ryan Vassar, Mark Penley and David Maxwell — claimed that they were unjustly terminated for reporting Paxton. 

Springer voted for Paxton's acquittal on 16 impeachment charges at trial in September. However, he now says that "recent developments have made me question whether AG Paxton and his legal team misled the Senate." 

TRUMP WEIGHS IN ON TEXAS AG KEN PAXTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, ARGUES ‘ESTABLISHMENT RINOS’ WANT TO ‘UNDO’ ELECTION

What happened? Last week, the Office of the Attorney General said in a court filing it could "obtain a verdict in this case in its favor," but instead moved to settle the lawsuit to "stop the self-aggrandizing political weaponization of our State’s courts by rogue employees who have what seems to be a monomaniacal goal to undermine the will of the voters," FOX 7 Austin reported.

"Doing so precludes further unwarranted expense to the people of the State of Texas as well as the disruption to the State’s principal law enforcement arm — the time and personnel of which are more appropriately dedicated to the business of the State of Texas and not the personal, political agenda of four rogue, former employees," the filing states.

EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR DETAILS SURFACE IN HISTORIC IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF TEXAS AG KEN PAXTON

In the filing, Paxton stated, "OAG hereby elects not to contest any issue of fact in this case, as to the claim or damages." 

Springer argues this amounts to an admission of guilt that should be reviewed by the legislature.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"While AG Paxton claims this decision is not an admission of guilt, the fact of the matter is it is an admission of guilt. He can't accept the whistleblower's claims against him while touting that he's innocent against those very claims," Springer said. 

The Office of the Attorney General did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Texas Senate to vote on AG Ken Paxton impeachment

The Texas Senate will vote on articles of impeachment brought against state Attorney General Ken Paxton at 10:30 a.m. central time on Saturday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announced.

The jury of 30 senators, most of whom are Republicans, spent about eight hours deliberating behind closed doors since the Senate ended deliberations. A two-thirds majority is required to convict Paxton on any of 16 articles of impeachment that accuse Paxton of bribery, corruption and unfitness for office.

The vote could be a slow, public process. Each article of impeachment gets a separate vote. Republicans hold a 19-12 majority in the Senate, meaning that if all Democrats vote to convict Paxton, they would need nine Republicans to join them.

Paxton faces accusations that he misused his political power to help the real estate developer Nate Paul. Paxton's opponents have argued that the attorney general accepted a bribe by hiring Paul.

"If we don’t keep public officials from abusing the powers of their office, then frankly no one can," Republican state Rep. Andrew Murr, one of the impeachment managers in the Texas House, said during closing arguments. 

Attorneys for the bipartisan group of lawmakers prosecuting Paxton’s impeachment rested their case Wednesday after a woman who was expected to testify about an extramarital affair with Paxton made a sudden appearance at the trial, but she never took the stand.

The affair is central to the proceedings and accusations of Paul, who was under FBI investigation and employed the woman, Laura Olson. One of the articles of impeachment against Paxton alleges that Paul's hiring of Olson amounted to a bribe.

Paxton's lawyers have cast the impeachment effort as a ploy by establishment Republicans to remove a proven conservative from office, pointing to Paxton's long record of challenging Democratic presidential administrations in high profile court cases that have won him acclaim from former President Donald Trump and conservative hardliners. 

"I would suggest to you this is a political witch hunt," Paxton attorney Tony Buzbee said. "I would suggest to you that this trial has displayed, for the country to see, a partisan fight within the Republican Party."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Paxton was also previously indicted in June for allegedly making false statements to banks. 

Paxton, who was suspended from office pending the trial's outcome, was not required to attend the proceedings and appeared only once in the Senate, durinc closing arguments, since testimony began last week. His wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, sat across the room from him. She was required to be present for the whole trial but was prohibited from participating in debate or voting on the outcome of her husband's trial. 

This is a developing story and will be updated. Fox News' Danielle Wallace and the Associated Press contributed to this report.