An excerpt from Media Matters for America v. Bailey, decided Friday by Judge Amit Mehta (D.D.C.); read the full opinion for more:
On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff Media Matters for America, Inc., a District of Columbia-based media company, published an article authored by Plaintiff Eric Hananoki reporting that advertisements for several major corporations were appearing next to extremist content on X.com ("November 16 Article"). Defendant Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton served a Civil Investigative Demand ("Texas CID") on Media Matters shortly thereafter, seeking a host of records concerning Media Matters' reporting and operations. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant Paxton in January 2024, asserting a Section 1983 claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Texas CID. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on April 12, 2024, finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in establishing jurisdiction over Paxton and on the merits of their claim.
Meanwhile, on March 25, 2024, Defendant Andrew Bailey, the Attorney General for the State of Missouri, served his own Civil Investigative Demand ("Missouri CID") on Media Matters with a return date of April 15, 2024. The Missouri CID sought nearly the same records as the Texas CID. On the same day Defendant Bailey served the CID, he preemptively filed an enforcement petition in Missouri state court, claiming that an immediate enforcement action was needed because Media Matters had resisted the Texas CID.
The court issued a preliminary injunction against AG Bailey's actions:
