Media Group Fights Records Request Over Report on Musk’s X

A Washington federal appeals court appeared divided at arguments in a battle between Texas and a liberal watchdog that has reported on the rise of hate speech on the social media platform X.

The three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard from parties Wednesday in Media Matters for America’s litigation challenging the state’s request for internal records.

Known as a civil investigative demand, the request is part of a state trade practices inquiry. It came in response to Media Matters’ report last year finding Neo-Nazi and extremist content running next to advertisements for major companies on Elon Musk’s X, formerly known as Twitter. Companies began pulling ads from the platform following the report’s publication, as well as after Musk’s tweet endorsing an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Judge Florence Pan appeared incredulous that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton would have the authority to take such a step.

“Does Attorney General Paxton believe that he can issue a CID to any news outlet in the country because somebody in Texas might read the article, if that article contains something that he thinks is misleading about a business?” Pan asked.

Lanora Pettit, an attorney for Texas, said Paxton would as long as he had reason to believe the outlet had engaged in deceptive trade practices and had a connection to Texas. She also argued the case belonged in Texas, and the issue wasn’t ripe for challenge.

Judge Harry Edwards pressed Media Matters’ lawyer Aria Branch on whether the suit was premature, since Texas hasn’t attempted to enforce its action. He asked her for more case citations to back up the group’s approach, which he said would be the “only way in my view you can survive” those issues.

“Nothing can happen to you, until something happens,” he said. “Just because you feel threatened doesn’t mean that law recognizes” that you have been, he added.

Branch said the threat of the investigative demand is “hanging over” the organization and chilling its free speech.

Judge Karen Henderson also sat on the panel.

Media Matters is also facing separate litigation in Texas from Musk’s X, which accused the watchdog of launching a smear campaign against the platform and “maliciously” trying to drive away advertisers.

Texas, where X is headquartered, lodged a civil demand in late 2023 requesting records from Media Matters as part of an investigation into deceptive trade practices. The watchdog then asked a federal court to block that records request, alleging Texas had retaliated against it for exercising its right to free speech.

Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled for Media Matters in April, finding the watchdog’s articles “are core First Amendment activities.”

Mehta had found his court had authority to hear the case under D.C.’s so-called long-arm statute, which allows its courts to establish jurisdiction of a person doing business, or causing harm, in D.C.

The judge later ruled against a similar civil demand request lodged by the Missouri attorney general.

The case isMedia Matters for America, et al v. Warren Paxton, Jr., D.C. Cir., No. 24-07059, 11/20/24