Case Summary and Outcome

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a non-profit media research center, Media Matters, finding that a federal agency likely violated the U.S. Constitution’s protection of free speech by issuing a retaliatory Civil Investigative Demand (CID). The dispute arose after the organization published a report documenting that advertisements from major companies were appearing alongside antisemitic content on X, the social-media platform. In the months that followed the organization was subjected to litigation by the platform and investigations by state attorneys general before the agency, under its new chair, served a broad CID ostensibly to probe coordinated advertiser boycotts. The Court treated the organization’s reporting as protected speech and found the CID’s demands sufficiently sweeping and burdensome to deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking again, constituting a chilling effect. As the organization demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied all the remaining preliminary injunction factors, the Court enjoined enforcement of the CID pending further proceedings.

---

Facts

In late 2022, businessman Elon Musk acquired the social media platform Twitter, subsequently rebranding it as “X”. Following the acquisition, Media Matters for America (Media Matters), a non-profit research and media watchdog, alleged that changes to X’s content moderation policies led to a substantial increase in extremist and racist rhetoric.

In February 2023, Media Matters published a series of articles that highlighted advertisements appearing next to hateful content on X. On November 16, 2023, Media Matters writer Eric Hananoki published an article titled: “As Musk endorses antisemitic conspiracy theory, X has been placing ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content.” [p. 5]

On November 18, 2023, Musk publicly declared his intent to file a “thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters.” [p. 5] Shortly thereafter, X Corp, the parent company operating X, and its subsidiaries filed legal proceedings against Media Matters and Hananoki in multiple jurisdictions. These actions were accompanied by inquiries from state authorities. Following a post on X by Stephen Miller (later the White House Deputy Chief of Staff) suggesting that Media Matters may have engaged in fraudulent conduct, the then-Attorney General of  Missouri, Andrew Bailey, announced that his team was “looking into this matter.” [p. 6] The next day, the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into Media Matters under the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act of 1973.

Both states subsequently issued Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) (formal requests issued by government authorities requiring the production of documents or information during investigations into potential legal violations) to Media Matters. Media Matters contested these demands before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia which issued preliminary injunctions in both cases, finding that the demands were likely retaliatory in nature and infringed upon the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (a constitutional provision protecting freedoms of speech and press, and shielding individuals and organizations from government retaliation for exercising those rights).

Simultaneously, Media Matters initiated legal action against X Corp. before the District Court of the Northern District of California challenging the latter’s “global litigation campaign”. [p. 8] Media Matters argued that X Corp. violated the forum selection clause in its terms of service (the contractual provision specifying the jurisdiction or court where disputes arising under the agreement must be resolved) and on April 10, 2025, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction against X Corp., finding that “it seems almost certain that the X entities’ decision to file multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions is designed more to bully Media Matters and inflict financial hardship upon it than to actually vindicate those entities’ rights.” [p. 8]

On December 10, 2024, then President-elect Donald Trump appointed Andrew Ferguson as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Prior to his appointment, Ferguson had made public statements indicating his intent to have the FTC “take investigative steps” against “progressives” engaging in efforts to combat “disinformation” and to investigate advertiser boycotts. [p. 8] Public statements by supporters and future colleagues of Ferguson reflected hostility toward Media Matters: for instance, Mike Davis, an outside adviser to the Trump administration who supported Ferguson’s nomination, urged Musk to “nuke” Media Matters and called the organization a “cancer to free speech.” [p. 9] He had also endorsed the litigation against Media Matters, posting on X, “[a]dvertiser boycotts are highly effective tactics leftists use to cow media executives to destroy free speech – and control the political narrative. [Media Matters] is the driving force behind conservative media getting crushed – and conservative voices silenced. Cheers to @ElonMusk.” [p. 9]

After becoming Chairman, Ferguson appointed senior staffers who had previously described Media Matters in ideological terms, including one who had called the organization the “scum of the earth” and an entity that “wants to weaponize powerful institutions to censor conservatives” and another, Joe Simsonson, the currently appointed FTC’s Director of Public Affairs, who posted on X: “Media Matters employed a number of stupid and resentful Democrats who went to like American University and didn’t have the emotional stability to work as an assistant press aide for a House member.” [p. 10]

On May 20, 2025, the FTC issued a broad CID to Media Matters. The CID demanded a wide range of documents, including materials from its litigation with X Corp., information on its methodologies for evaluating media content, communications with other entities about content categorization, and all of its financial statements. The CID’s “Subject of Investigation” section only stated, “[s]ee attached,” with an attachment referencing a 2022 FTC resolution about investigating potential collusion in violation of the FTC Act. The FTC later clarified, after this lawsuit was filed, that the investigation’s purpose was to determine if entities were engaging in anticompetitive practices, such as boycotts, to diminish advertising on news outlets.

Media Matters filed a lawsuit against the FTC, alleging that the CID was a retaliatory action for its protected speech, violating the First Amendment, and was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First and Fourth (a constitutional provision protecting individuals and entities from unreasonable government searches and seizures, including overly broad demands for information) Amendments. The organization sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the CID had a chilling effect on its journalistic activities. Media Matters provided declarations stating that due to the investigation, it had refrained from pursuing certain stories about the FTC, Chairman Ferguson, and Musk. A hearing on the matter was held and a memorandum opinion was subsequently issued on Aug 15, 2025.

---

Decision Overview

Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the United States District of Columbia delivered the memorandum opinion. The central issue before the Court was whether Media Matters was entitled to a preliminary injunction against the FTC’s CID.

Media Matters argued that it satisfied all the required elements to establish a First Amendment retaliation violation. It submitted that its journalistic activities, including research and reporting on topics of public concern like the rise of extremist content on X, are protected First Amendment activities and that the CID “chilled its First Amendment Activity.” [p. 12] As evidence of such chilling effect, Media Matters submitted declarations demonstrating that it had refrained from pursuing certain stories concerning Ferguson and Musk as a direct consequence of the investigation. It also presented evidence that the CID had imposed “additional costs” and “retention challenges” on the organization and had led to its “removal from coalition communications” related to FTC activities. [p. 13]

Media Matters argued that a causal link existed between its protected activity and the issuance of the CID and that the CID was retaliatory, citing hostile and ideologically charged statements by Ferguson and senior FTC staff, the suspicious timing of the investigation following failed retaliatory efforts by Musk and state officials, and evidence that the FTC’s stated justification was a pretext, as it lacked jurisdiction over nonprofits and had not pursued similar conduct by administration allies. Media Matters submitted that the CID was unconstitutionally overbroad as it sought sensitive journalistic materials without the “scrupulous exactitude” required when First Amendment rights are implicated, including documents related to its finances, editorial processes, newsgathering activities, and confidential sources. [p. 29 of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum] Media Matters submitted that it was suffering irreparable injury from a campaign of retaliation, that the balance of equities tipped in its favor, and that an injunction was in the public interest.

The FTC argued that there is “significant question” as to whether a retaliatory investigation claim is even recognized as valid and capable of being heard in court. [p. 1 of Defendants’ Opposition] Citing several cases from different courts where officials were granted qualified immunity (protection from personal liability for actions taken in the course of official duties, unless they violated clearly established law) for retaliatory criminal investigations, it submitted that the right to be free from such investigations is not clearly established. The FTC further maintained that any alleged harms, including reputational damage, financial burdens, or self-censorship, were “self-inflicted” because Media Matters had chosen to publicize what was otherwise a nonpublic investigation. [p. 41 of Defendants’ Opposition] The FTC argued that Media Matters had failed to prove that retaliatory animus was the “but-for cause” (i.e., that the CID would not have been issued but for the alleged retaliatory motive) of the CID. It asserted that the CID was part of a broader, legitimate inquiry into potential anticompetitive advertiser boycotts and noted that seventeen similar CIDs had been issued as part of a “broader investigation into an area of significant interest for the Commission: advertiser boycotts that may violate the antitrust laws.” [p. 1 of Defendants’ Opposition] The FTC also pointed to the year-and-a-half gap between Media Matters’ November 2023 article and the May 2025 CID as evidence undermining any inference of retaliation. It dismissed the significance of hostile remarks made by administration allies and junior staff, emphasizing that none of these individuals were decision-makers and that Media Matters had not shown any instance where Ferguson himself mentioned the organization.

The Court stressed the importance of freedom of speech: “[s]peech on matters of public concern is the heartland of the First Amendment. The principle that public issues should be debated freely has long been woven into the very fabric of who we are as a Nation. Without it, our democracy stands on shaky ground. It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting. This case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation.” [p. 1]

In addressing the request for a preliminary injunction, the Court relied on the standard articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Under this standard, the plaintiff, Media Matters in this case, seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that: (i) they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case; (ii) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (iii) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (iv) an injunction is in the public interest. In assessing whether Media Matters was likely to succeed on the merits of the First Amendment retaliation claim, the Court used the framework set out in Aref v. Lynch, which requires Media Matters to show that it: (i) “engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment;” (ii) “the defendants took some retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff’s position from speaking again;” and (iii) a causal link between the exercise of a constitutional right and the adverse action taken.” [p. 31] The Court held that Media Matters had satisfied all three Aref elements.

The Court found that the Media Matters had “engaged in protected activities under the First Amendment.” [p. 31] In particular, the Court treated the organization’s reporting concerning Musk and X as “quintessential First Amendment activit[y],” relying on Snyder v. Phelps in noting that such discussion of public issues “occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” [p. 31-2] The FTC did not contest this element of the claim.

The Court, on the retaliatory act in question, noted that a person of ordinary firmness, in Media Matter’s position, would likely be dissuaded from engaging in further reporting when confronted with what it described as a “fishing expedition of a CID,” which demanded extensive materials concerning Media Matters’ methodology, finances, internal communications, and sources. [p. 33] It highlighted that the chilling effect of the CID was heightened because it sought “a reporter’s resource materials,” further explaining that the “compelled production of a reporter’s resource materials can constitute a significant intrusion … [that] may substantially undercut the public policy in favor of the free flow of information to the public.” [p. 33] The fact that the CID could ultimately be enforced in federal court, the Court found, reinforced the conclusion that such an investigative demand would deter protected activity.

The Court identified evidence demonstrating that this chilling effect was not merely theoretical and referred to sworn declarations showing that, as a direct result of the CID, Media Matters declined to pursue certain reporting it otherwise would have undertaken regarding the FTC, Ferguson, and Musk; one declarant had attested that “any reference to the FTC or commissioners must be approved by senior staff and the legal team, burdening an already cumbersome editing process,” a concern that “did not exist in the past.” [p. 35]

The Court rejected the FTC’s central argument that “there is a significant question whether a retaliatory investigation claim is even cognizable.” [p. 36] It found that the qualified immunity decisions cited by the FTC were inapposite, noting that the standard for qualified immunity is far more stringent than the one applicable to preliminary injunctive relief. The Court observed that “[i]t is hard to imagine any media company not being chilled by this sweeping and sensitive CID.” [p. 38] It referred to Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. AT&T and held that the FTC’s argument conflicted with established D.C. Circuit precedent and stated that “[t]he older D.C. Circuit opinion pulled no punches,” citing its findings regarding recognizing that the use of investigative tools “not in furtherance of bona fide felony investigations, but in order to harass plaintiffs in their journalistic information-gathering activities” constitutes an infringement of First Amendment rights. [p. 39]

On the causation requirement, the Court found that Media Matters was likely to demonstrate that retaliatory motivation was the “but-for” cause of the CID, based on a combination of circumstantial evidence. It identified three principal strands supporting this inference and highlighted, in particular, public remarks by Ferguson and senior FTC staff that cast Media Matters in overtly ideological terms, including statements about deploying the agency’s investigative powers against progressive organizations and disparaging references to Media Matters’ mission and methods. One of the instances noted by the Court occurred in June 2023, when Jon Schweppe, Senior Policy Advisor at the FTC, stated “Media Matters = scum of the earth[,]” and the Court noted that “[t]hese are precisely the sorts of comments that courts in this District have considered as evidence of retaliatory intent.” [p. 42]

The Court also treated the timing of the CID as suspect as it followed a sequence of unsuccessful legal efforts mounted by Musk and his allies and commented that “[i]t stands to reason that the FTC issued an additional CID while the D.C. Circuit was still considering whether to affirm the preliminary injunction of the Texas CID because it wanted to continue the years’ long pressure campaign against Media Matters by Mr. Musk and his political allies.” [p. 43] The Court noted that Ferguson “wasted no time” once in office, suggesting he was “chomping at the bit” to pursue groups like Media Matters. [p. 43] The Court concluded that the FTC’s proffered, non-retaliatory rationale was pretextual and noted that the CID itself contained no explanation of the agency’s basis, that the FTC furnished a justification only after litigation of the present case commenced. Accordingly, the Court held that “[t]he late-breaking nature of this explanation cuts in favor of finding pretext. And the Defendants’ ultimate explanation does not inspire confidence that they acted in good faith.” [p. 45]

Regarding overbreadth, the Court noted that the CID’s “sweeping scope,” including a demand for all of Media Matters’ financial statements, far exceeded the stated purpose of probing coordinated advertiser boycotts. [p. 45] The Court criticized the agency for failing to explain why it had “reason to believe” that Media Matters possessed information relevant to that inquiry. In oral arguments, the FTC acknowledged this breadth, however, it argued that the Court should disregard it as recipients, such as Media Matter, are encouraged to “meet and confer with the FTC in order to narrow the original demand.” [fn. 5] The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that it must evaluate the CID as actually issued rather than relying on a hypothetical, narrowed version. The Court also expressed concern that the FTC’s position suggested the federal government “routinely issues civil investigative demands it knows to be overbroad with the goal of later narrowing those demands presumably in exchange for compliance.” [fn. 5] The Court concluded that, taken as a whole, the CID’s scope “suggests pretext on the part of the FTC,” a finding that undermined the agency’s arguments regarding causation in the retaliation claim. [p. 46]

Satisfying the Aref framework and having established a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court found that the remaining factors of the Winter test for a preliminary injunction were also satisfied.

For the second requirement, irreparable injury, the Court found that this requirement was “easily met,” citing Pursuing America’s Greatness v. FEC  in emphasizing a core principle which is that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury”. [p. 46] The Court described the FTC’s conduct against Media Matters as a “campaign of retaliation” and found that the organization was experiencing irreparable harm. [p. 46] The Court rejected the FTC’s contention that other alleged harms, such as “self-censorship” and financial injury, were “self-inflicted,” and observed that the FTC failed to respond to the central argument that the deprivation of First Amendment freedoms itself constitutes irreparable injury and so, relying on Parham v. District of Columbia, thus treated that point as conceded. [p. 46]

In addressing the last two Winter requirements, the Court noted that the balance of equities and the public interest are treated as a single requirement when the government is the opposing party and concluded that these factors weighed in Media Matters’ favor, relying on two guiding principles from Karem v. Trump and Pursuing America’s Greatness that “enforcement of an unconstitutional [action] is always contrary to the public interest,” and that “there is always a strong public interest in the exercise of free speech rights.” [p. 47] Because Media Matters had shown a likelihood that the FTC’s CID was unconstitutional and retaliatory, the Court held that enjoining its enforcement served the public interest and that the equities favored preserving Media Matters’ First Amendment rights.

In summary, the Court held that Media Matters had demonstrated a clear entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. It found that the FTC’s CID, issued following a coordinated campaign by political and corporate allies of the platform, was likely a retaliatory measure targeting and chilling Media Matters’s reporting in violation of the First Amendment and that the breadth of the CID and the hostile statements made by agency leadership strongly indicated that the stated justification was pretextual and that the true motivating factor was retaliatory. The Court found that the deprivation of First Amendment rights constituted irreparable harm and that the public interest favored preventing enforcement of an unconstitutional action. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion and enjoined the agency from enforcing its CID pending the final resolution of the case.

---