AUSTIN, TX (CN) - The national LGBTQ+ resource group PFLAG urged the Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday to put the kibosh on a hunt by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, arguing the documents he demands do not exist.

The Texas Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division launched a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, or DTPA, investigation into PFLAG in Febuary 2024. Paxton, a vocal critic of the LGBTQ+ community, claims the organization is withholding "incriminating documents" proving it committed fraud by working with doctors to provide gender-affirming care to minors, which Texas lawmakers banned.

PFLAG sued the attorney general to block enforcement of his demand for the records, and after a state judge partially blocked the request, Paxton's office filed a direct appeal with the all-Republican state Supreme Court, asking the court to reverse the injunction and order the trial court to enforce his office's civil investigative demand.

During much of his arguments, Assistant Attorney General William Peterson told the seven justices present that the trial court erred procedurally by treating the case as a traditional civil trial over an objection to discovery. Furthermore, the attorney general argues in his briefs that the lower court judge effectively shut down his office's ability to invoke its investigative authority.

However, many of the questions the justices asked Peterson were about the documents the attorney general was demanding. He explained that the demands stemmed from an affidavit PFLAG CEO Brian Bond provided in a case the group joined in to challenge SB 14. In the document, Bond references contingency plans or alternative avenues for transgender youth to maintain gender-affirming care.

Justice Jane Bland asked Peterson to describe what documents the state was looking for that were in relation to Bond's statement. Peterson explained that the Consumer Protection Division is demanding documents and communications that reference supposed contingency plans.

Following Peterson, Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock asked PFLAG attorney Allissa Pollard whether the documents Paxton wants even exist. The Arnold & Porter attorney responded that Brian Bond's statement regarding contingency plans was related to the time before the ban took effect, when transgender youth could still access care in Texas.

"[Bond] testified in the lower court that he was not referencing any care that would be provided after SB 14 went into effect," Pollard explained. "He also testified that he was unaware of any doctors who were continuing to provide care."

In another exchange with Blacklock, Pollard stressed that PFLAG does not have any documents about evading the state's laws or providing care post SB 14.

On rebuttal, Peterson said the Consumer Protection Division's civil investigative demands were not for PFLAG to turn over incriminating documents, but for documents with references to contingency plans for transgender youth to maintain care in Texas.

"If it were to say, please provide documents about contingency plans and alternative avenues to maintain care that show that you are assisting doctors violating the law, then I think we're going to hear exactly the same answer that we just heard from my friend, which is we do not have any of those because we are not assisting doctors in evading the law," Peterson said.

The justices did not indicate when they would rule.

This is just the latest case to be heard by the high court concerning the state's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. In 2024, the court ruled in Loe v. Texas that Senate Bill 14 - which made providing gender-affirming care to minors illegal - is valid under the Texas Constitution.

Paxton has been aggressive in seeking to enforce SB 14 against doctors since the law took effect. Last year, the state accused a Dallas-area doctor of providing gender-affirming care to minors by lying to pharmacies and insurance providers about the care she was giving to patients. During Tuesday's arguments, Peterson said that the documents Paxton seeks from PFLAG are "highly relevant to the investigation that's being conducted by the Consumer Protection Division into doctors misrepresenting treatment."

Source: Courthouse News Service