[co-author: Stephanie Kozol]*
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently enjoined Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton from enforcing a pre-litigation subpoena issued to Media Matters for America (Media Matters). The subpoena is related to the Texas AG’s investigation into Media Matters arising out of allegations that the company fraudulently manipulated data after it reported about brand advertisement concerns on X.
What Happened
The Texas AG’s investigation arose following an article that Media Matters published on November 16, 2023, regarding advertisements on X, formerly Twitter. The article reported that advertisements of major brands appeared next to antisemitic and white supremacist content on X. Elon Musk, owner of X, accused Media Matters of fraudulent reporting, and X filed a lawsuit against Media Matters for defamation on November 20, 2023.
That same day, November 20, 2023, the Texas AG opened an investigation into Media Matters in connection with its reporting, asserting potential violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Shortly thereafter, the Texas AG issued a pre-investigative subpoena seeking a broad swath of records. Media Matters filed suit against the Texas AG in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the investigation and subpoena because they violated Media Matters’ First Amendment rights. The District Court granted the injunction. On May 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the District Court’s ruling, exercising jurisdiction over the Texas AG and finding that Media Matters is likely to succeed on its First Amendment retaliation claim.
Why It Matters
The decision from the D.C. Circuit reflects federal courts’ growing willingness to exercise personal jurisdiction over state AGs who the courts view as overstepping their constitutional authority. In a world where state AGs have become increasingly active, federal courts, like the D.C. Circuit, are stepping in to address constitutional protections and act as referee between state regulators and companies with national footprints. This decision is an exemplar of such activity and illustrates that federal courts may provide an avenue for relief when companies are targeted by state AGs for multi-jurisdictional business practices.
*Senior Government Relations Manager
