WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge heard arguments Thursday regarding whether he had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by progressive watchdog Media Matters against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
The suit stems from an investigation Paxton had opened into the organization following its report that major ad campaigns on X, formerly Twitter, were running next to white nationalist and antisemitic content on the app in the wake of Elon Musk’s takeover of the social media site.
Media Matters’ reporting seemingly led large advertisers like Apple and Disney to pull out their ads off the platform, after which X sued the organization in November 2023, in the Northern District of Texas. The social media platform accused Media Matters of misrepresentation.
Paxton announced his investigation the same day, seeking to prove whether Media Matters committed “potential fraudulent activity.” In his announcement, Paxton referred to Media Matters as a “radical left-wing organization who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square.”
Media Matters and Eric Hananoki, senior investigative reporter behind the article, filed suit in federal court in Maryland, where Hananoki lives and works. The lawsuit was transferred to the District Court for the District of Columbia, where Media Matters is based, in January.
Media Matters says in its lawsuit that Paxton’s investigation was clear retaliation intended to chill further reporting on X, violating the organization’s First Amendment rights.
Following the transfer, Paxton noted in a filing that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had expressed concern regarding whether the District of Maryland had jurisdiction over Paxton and urged U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to consider the question in Washington.
Media Matters' attorney Aria Branch, of the firm Elias Law, asserted during Thursday’s proceedings that because Media Matters is based in Washington, and because Paxton had hired a process server in D.C. to serve a civil investigation demand for documents to the organization, he had waived any argument that the case could not proceed in Washington.
She reasoned that if the case, which aims to block Paxton’s investigation on the grounds he does not have jurisdiction in Washington, cannot continue in Washington, it could open the door to Media Matters facing litigation in multiple states.
After Paxton announced his investigation, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey posted on X that his “team is looking into this matter."
Mehta, a Barack Obama appointee, grilled both sides on the issue, calling it an “open question” that has been sparsely addressed by appellate courts.
He was reluctant to accept either side’s position on Thursday, ordering further briefing on the issue, beginning next Friday, that he could consider before deciding.
But Mehta did appear to lean toward accepting Branch’s position, focusing on the subpoena and the hiring of a server in Washington as potential grounds to establish jurisdiction.
Paxton agreed not to enforce the subpoena until Mehta rules on a motion for a preliminary injunction to block it, which Mehta has indicated he would consider after deciding whether the case can continue.
Even with the pause, Branch said, the subpoena still chills Media Matters and its employees like Hananoki.
“They are unable to do their jobs while this CID is hanging over their head,” Branch told Mehta.
Mehta noted that the investigation appears to be a “proxy defamation case” and could raise potential First Amendment issues, specifically citing the actual malice test outlined in the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan.
The test would require a high burden of proof that Hananoki’s article was false, he knew it was false or demonstrated “reckless disregard” as to its veracity and that it harmed X.
Reuben Blum, assistant attorney general for the state of Texas, acknowledged there may be some First Amendment issues present in the case, but said he would have to further investigate.
Paxton, a hard-right conservative and outspoken ally of former President Donald Trump — he spoke at the “Stop the Steal” rally outside the White House the morning of Jan. 6, 2021 — found himself embroiled in an impeachment trial last September.
He was acquitted on 16 articles of impeachment, including abuse of office, constitutional bribery, making false statements in official records, conspiracy and abuse of the public trust.
Follow @Ryan_Knappy
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
