Media Matters Shielded From Records Bid Over Musk’s X Report (1)

A Washington federal appeals court rejected Texas’s bid to get internal records from a liberal watchdog that reported on the rise of hate speech on the social media platform X.

A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found on Friday that Texas had likely illegally retaliated against Media Matters for America for protected free speech, after the state sent the media organization a records request as part of a deceptive trade practices investigation.

“In this case, there is uncontested evidence of Paxton’s retaliatory motive in investigating Media Matters,” Senior Judge Harry Edwards wrote for the panel.

The panel also found the organization could bring its challenge in a Washington federal court under D.C.’s so-called long-arm statute, which allows its courts to establish jurisdiction over a person doing business, or causing harm, in D.C.

Judge Karen Henderson concurred in the opinion, but said she would have found Media Matters had standing for a different reason. Judge Florence Pan also sat on the panel.

The decision upholds a lower court ruling in favor of Media Matters, represented by attorneys with the law firm of Democratic elections lawyer Marc Elias. The liberal organization drew Texas’s scrutiny after it issued a report in 2023 on neo-Nazi and extremist content running next to advertisements for major companies on Elon Musk’s X. The platform, formerly known as Twitter, is based in Texas.

Companies began pulling ads from the platform following the report’s publication, and after Musk tweeted an endorsement of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Aria Branch, a partner with the Elias Law Group who represented Media Matters, said in a statement the court ruling “reinforces the fundamental principle that government officials cannot weaponize their investigative powers to silence those whose speech they disagree with.”

A spokesperson for the Texas attorney general’s office didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

The organization has also faced defamation claims from X in a Texas federal court, prompting Media Matters to counter-sue in California. Multiple news outlets have reported that the Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into whether Media Matters colluded with advertisers.

Media Matters argued in court in the Washington case that the state’s trade practices inquiry and civil investigative demand represented a “nakedly retaliatory investigation” that chilled its free speech. Texas claimed Media Matters’ reporting wasn’t protected free speech, and that the court couldn’t hear its claims regardless.

During oral argument in November, Pan had appeared skeptical that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) could demand internal records from “any news outlet in the country” if he thinks the reporting is misleading at the expense of a business in the state.

The case is Media Matters for America et al v. Paxton, D.C. Cir., No. 24-7059, 5/30/25