Missouri attorney general subpoenas Media Matters after report on X

Media Matters for America was granted a preliminary injunction in federal court on Aug. 22, 2024, forbidding Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey from demanding materials related to its reporting about the social platform X, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

In November 2023, the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit published a report written by its investigative reporter Eric Hananoki that found advertisements for major brands appeared next to pro-Nazi posts on X. Several major companies subsequently paused their advertising on the platform. X promptly sued Media Matters and Hananoki in federal court, alleging they had manipulated the platform’s algorithms to harm X’s relationship with advertisers.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, citing X’s allegations, issued a civil investigative demand, a form of subpoena, to Media Matters in December, demanding documents related to its reporting on X. Media Matters sued to block Paxton’s demand in federal court and was granted a preliminary injunction against him in April 2024.

Bailey, who opened his own investigation into Media Matters alleging it had fraudulently solicited donations, issued a similar demand to Paxton’s in March 2024 for donation records and documents associated with Hananoki’s investigation, and sued the nonprofit in state court to enforce the demand.

Media Matters objected to Bailey’s demand in its entirety as unconstitutional. It added Bailey to its federal suit against Paxton and asked the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent Bailey from enforcing the demand or issuing any others.

In May, Media Matters announced that it was laying off at least a dozen staffers in the face of a “legal assault on multiple fronts,” including X’s lawsuit. Freedom of the Press Foundation, of which the Tracker is a project, called the news “the latest example of billionaires and pandering politicians abusing the legal system to retaliate against their critics and harm the public’s right to know.”

In August, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta granted Media Matters’ request for protection against Bailey, ruling that Media Matters “would be irreparably harmed absent an injunction.” Mehta cited the examples the group had provided of the chilling effect of Bailey’s actions, including self-censorship by Hananoki and other Media Matters journalists, and the slowing of Media Matters’ editorial process out of caution.

Mehta also pointed to ample evidence of Bailey’s retaliatory intent, including that he had “admitted to coordinating with Defendant Paxton from the outset,” “consistently characterized Media Matters in ideological terms” and “expressly tied the investigation to the upcoming election.”

Of Bailey’s claims that the impetus for his investigation was Media Matters’ fraudulent solicitation of donations from Missourians, Mehta wrote, “The evidence that these explanations are a pretext for retaliation is strong,” adding: “Missouri’s interest in enforcing its consumer protection laws must give way when a state actor uses them to retaliate against a media organization for protected speech.”

“A federal judge has clearly seen this coordinated effort by state attorneys general for what it is – sucking up to Elon Musk and abusing the power of their offices to intimidate researchers and stifle accurate reporting by Musk's critics,” Media Matters President Angelo Carusone said in a statement emailed to the Tracker. “The judge’s decision is a victory for free speech and a warning to other AGs and like-minded bad actors that the constitution does not allow for this type of meritless, retaliatory, harassing effort to suppress free speech.”

Media Matters was due to respond to Bailey’s requests for documents in Missouri circuit court by Aug. 23, but in light of the federal court’s decision a day earlier, which it assumed would prevent Bailey from pursuing his requests, it asked Bailey’s legal team to delay the deadline. Bailey did not grant Media Matters’ request, instead filing a notice with the court about the injunction and telling Media Matters that the notice “speaks for itself.”

Media Matters then filed a response to the notice with the court, reiterating its arguments against the demand as a violation of both its constitutional protections and DC and Maryland reporters’ shield laws.

Meanwhile, in X’s suit against the group, Media Matters had argued that the platform should list Tesla as an “interested party” in the case. In addition to owning X, Elon Musk is the co-founder and CEO of Tesla.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who bought more than $15,000 worth of Tesla stock in 2022, according to Ars Technica, ruled on Aug. 16 that this was unnecessary.

“The mere assertions that Musk owns a constellation of companies, some former Tesla employees now work at X, and that Tesla leased workspace from X do not support a finding that Tesla and X are not separate legal entities or that they share a financial interest,” O’Connor wrote. He accused Media Matters of trying to force his recusal, adding that such a “backdoor recusal” was “inappropriate.”

Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Media Matters for America sued Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey in federal court on April 24, 2024, alleging that his demand for documents related to its reporting about the social platform X violated the organization’s constitutional rights, according to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

In November 2023, Media Matters published a report written by its investigative reporter Eric Hananoki that found advertisements for major brands appeared next to pro-Nazi posts on X. Several major companies subsequently paused their advertising on the platform.

X promptly sued Media Matters and Hananoki, alleging they had manipulated the platform’s algorithms to produce the report’s findings in order to harm X’s relationship with advertisers. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, citing these allegations, issued a civil investigative demand to Media Matters in December, demanding documents related to its reporting on X.

Media Matters sued to block Paxton’s demand in federal court and was granted a preliminary injunction against him on April 12.

Bailey, who opened his own investigation into Media Matters alleging it had fraudulently solicited donations, issued a similar demand to Paxton’s in March 2024 and initiated a suit against the nonprofit in state court, arguing it was unlikely to comply with the demand without a court order.

In an April 15 letter to Bailey reviewed by the Tracker, Media Matters objected to the demand in its entirety. It alleged that Bailey’s request for both donation records and documents associated with Hananoki’s investigation, among other records, constituted retaliation against the organization’s “First Amendment-protected journalistic and investigative activity” and had chilled its reporting on X and the platform’s owner, Elon Musk. It warned Bailey that if he did not withdraw the demand and dismiss the case, it would pursue relief against him in federal court.

On April 24, true to its word, the nonprofit added Bailey as a defendant in the Paxton suit, alleging that Bailey’s demand, like Paxton’s, violated its First, Fourth and 14th amendment rights. The next day, it asked the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Bailey to prevent him from enforcing the demand for documents or issuing any others.

“Bailey has, like Paxton, been the subject of critical reporting from Media Matters,” the organization wrote to the court. “Bailey’s Demand, much like Paxton’s, thus reeks of opportunistic retaliation.”