Ken Paxton wanted to limit forum shopping. Now lawyers say he’s improperly seeking favorable courts.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in October against Johnson & Johnson, Kenvue Brands, and Kenvue Inc., alleging the companies failed to warn pregnant women about Tylenol’s risks to children, including autism and ADHD. The claims echo those made by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Paxton’s office chose Panola County—a sparsely populated, politically conservative area near the Louisiana border—to file the case, despite its tenuous connection to the allegations. The county’s sole state district judge is a Republican, raising concerns about forum shopping, where plaintiffs select courts perceived as favorable. Critics argue the case mirrors a dismissed New York federal lawsuit, where a judge ruled the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were unreliable. Lawyers for the pharmaceutical companies accused Paxton’s office of exploiting the legal system, noting this is not the first time his office has filed lawsuits in counties with weak ties to the claims. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune identified at least 30 such cases over the past nine years. Paxton’s strategy contradicts his past stance. In 2017, he authored a legal brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to curb forum shopping in federal courts, calling it a threat to the justice system’s fairness. Legal experts also point out that Texas law requires lawsuits to be filed in counties where a ‘substantial’ part of the alleged violation occurred, a rule conservatives pushed for to prevent trial lawyers from seeking favorable venues. The lawsuit’s filing in Panola County—where Trump won 67% of the vote in 2020—underscores the political calculus behind the choice. Kim Bueno, the drugmakers’ lawyer, dismissed the case as baseless, noting prior rejections of similar claims. Paxton’s office, however, framed the action as holding ‘Big Pharma’ accountable, using language reminiscent of Kennedy’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ slogan. Legal scholars criticize the move as opportunistic, suggesting Paxton’s office is exploiting procedural loopholes to advance a politically charged agenda. The case highlights broader concerns about how state attorneys general leverage lawsuits for influence, particularly when their actions clash with past legal positions.