'They tried to sue me. They lost': Twitter loses lawsuit against Texas AG Paxton

A California federal judge dismissed a lawsuit levied by Twitter on May 11. 

The lawsuit was in response to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton allegedly discriminating against Twitter in retaliation for former President Donald Trump being banned from the website. 

The ruling was seven pages. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney, who was a Clinton appointee, ruled that the lawsuit was premature due to Paxton not making any attempt to enforce a January request for records pertaining to Twitter's content moderation policies. 

"The court finds Twitter's lawsuit is premature, and, as such, is subject to dismissal,” Judge Chesney said in her decision. 

Despite this, Judge Chesney did rule that the Texas Attorney General's Office had no authority to impose its sanctions. 

“Unlike the defendants in the cases on which Twitter relies, the Office of the Attorney General has no authority to impose any sanction for a failure to comply with its investigation,” Judge Chesney said in the decision. “Rather, the Office of the Attorney General would be required to go to court, where the only possible consequence adverse to Twitter would be a judicial finding that the CID, contrary to Twitter’s assertion, is enforceable. Accordingly, as, to date, no action has been taken to enforce the CID, the Court finds Twitter’s lawsuit is premature, and, as such, is subject to dismissal.”

Attorney General Paxton was also satisfied with the result. 

"Twitter tried to hide from my investigation into their censorship and potential violations of #Texas laws," Attorney General Paxton said in a tweet on May 11. "They didn't like that I asked questions, so they tried to sue me. They lost, in California."

Twitter's lawsuit requested a temporary restraining order against Paxton and the Attorney General's office to prevent them from seeing documents pertaining to how the website bans users. Paxton might need to again go to court in order to see the documents, although in that instance the case would likely be heard in Texas instead of California.