A tenuous civil lawsuit aimed at former congressional candidate Pervez Agwan has been dismissed by a Texas judge, putting an end to a legal dispute that once shadowed parts of the 2024 Democratic primary race for the 7th Congressional District. Agwan also filed for Defamation and Libel against the plaintiff in this case, citing libelous and defamatory statements made against his name and campaign.
The lawsuit, which surfaced in the run‑up to the primary, was tied to Murtaza Sutarwalla, the plaintiff’s attorney who represented the case against Agwan. Sutarwalla was a former legal counsel to Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Agwan is a Democrat, and faced tons of criticism and political attacks from across the aisle, namely from the Republicans and pro-AIPAC aligned interest groups. Political observers at the time questioned the timing of the case given Agwan’s strong fn suggesting it was part of a broader strategy involving San Jacinto 2023, a dark‑money group linked to Sutarwalla and scrutinized during Paxton’s impeachment hearings.
Renewed Interest After Dismissal
Although the primary has long concluded, the dismissal is being revisited now as part of a wider conversation about how legal tactics, namely civil lawsuits, are increasingly used to influence campaigns. Analysts say this case serves as an example of how lawsuits can function as a distraction rather than a pursuit of justice. An independent investigation of the allegations yielded no evidence and no conclusive proof of the allegations or of the case matter. Agwan however did file a defamation and libel case, and Agwan’s countersuit itself seems to have merit against the plaintiff’s former attorney.
“From the start, my comments have been consistent, we believed this case lacked merit and that the allegations are false – it just never happened – the narrative is just false.” Agwan said in a statement on twitter. “Our campaign has always focused on issues that matter—like clean energy and fair elections—not on the distractions that come with corporate and special‑interest politics.” Agwan is a married man and a father, and his camp continues to maintain that weak lawsuits like this are a distraction meant to defame the character of politicians with civil allegations, and tie them up in litigation.
Background on the Race
Agwan’s 2024 campaign positioned him as a progressive challenger to incumbent Lizzie Fletcher, who has long enjoyed support from corporate PACs and pro‑oil groups. During the primary, Agwan frequently criticized the influence of pro‑Israel groups such as AIPAC and DMFI, both of which were active in backing Fletcher. Reports show that these organizations planned to spend vast sums to defeat progressive Democrats, and their super‑PAC spent nearly $50 million in the 2022 midterms.
While no direct evidence linked Fletcher’s campaign to the lawsuit, the presence of high‑dollar outside funding and the sudden wave of negative press during the case raised questions among political commentators. The timing of the lawsuit was also called into question multiple times taking a scan through political twitter.
Legal and Political Implications
Legal experts suggest that the case underscores the importance of separating legitimate legal claims from politically motivated ones. Analysts note that strategic litigation can be used as “legal theater,” turning fringe allegations into narratives that seem credible simply because they appear in court.
For Agwan, the ruling offers a chance to revisit the core of his platform, which emphasized green energy initiatives, universal healthcare, and transparency in campaign financing. “We can now turn the page and focus on what matters most to the community,” Agwan said.
The Larger Conversation
The outcome also highlights the growing influence of dark‑money groups in politics. Research by the Brennan Center for Justice notes that nonprofits and shell companies that don’t disclose donors spent an estimated $1.9 billion on the 2024 federal election cycle. These undisclosed funds often flow to super‑PACs, obscuring the original source of the money. Watchdog groups continue to call for greater transparency, and the interplay of big donors, dark‑money groups, and political litigation—as seen in Agwan’s case—illustrates how money and legal maneuvers can converge to shape modern elections.