On August 15, 2025, D.C. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) from implementing or enforcing the Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) that it had issued to the left-wing watchdog journalism organization, Media Matters for America.[1] Judge Sooknanan warned that “[i]t should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate.”[2] “And,” she stressed, “that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.”[3]
We provide a summary of Judge Sooknanan’s decision below.
Background
In 2023, Media Matters began publishing articles on the increase in offensive content on X following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform, and in particular, reported that advertisements on X were increasingly appearing next to offensive posts.[4] On November 18, 2023, Mr. Musk promised to file “a thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters,” and he followed through by suing Media Matters in multiple forums around the world.[5] On November 19, 2023, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller posted on X, in response to a post about the Media Matters article, that “[f]raud is both a civil and criminal violation” and that “[t]here are 2 dozen+ conservative state Attorneys General.”[6] The Missouri attorney general replied to Mr. Miller’s post: “My team is looking into this matter.”[7] “[S]eemingly at the behest of Mr. Miller,” the Texas and Missouri state attorneys general then began investigating the nonprofit.[8] Ultimately, the state-issued investigations, and Mr. Musk’s “global litigation campaign,” were enjoined by district courts.[9]
On May 20, 2025, under the leadership of Chairman Andrew Ferguson, the FTC “[took] up the cause” and issued a “sweeping” CID to Media Matters demanding a host of records concerning the nonprofit’s reporting and operations.[10] Chairman Ferguson also brought on several senior staffers at the FTC who had “previously made public comments about Media Matters.”[11] The FTC asserted that the purpose of its investigation is to determine whether online advertisers colluded to use lists that rate content publishers as not “brand suitable” or “brand safe” to coordinate the placement of ads.[12] Media Matters argued that the real purpose of the CID is to retaliate against it for its journalism in violation of the First Amendment.
Media Matters brought this action against the FTC in June alleging that the retaliatory CID violates its First and Fourth Amendment rights. In July, Media Matters moved for a preliminary injunction.
Analysis
As an initial matter, the court rejected the FTC’s threshold arguments that the court lacked authority to hear the case pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The court held that “nothing” in either of these acts suggests that Congress meant to strip the federal courts of the power to review the FTC’s retaliatory conduct, at least not when it comes to the First Amendment retaliation claim.[13]
As for the merits, the court found that the CID constitutes a “straightforward First Amendment violation,” and Media Matters is thus likely to prevail on its First Amendment claim for retaliation.[14] It held that Media Matters’ news reporting was clearly conduct protected under the First Amendment, and the evidence showed that the CID would deter a person of “ordinary firmness” from speaking again.[15] “Indeed,” the court observed, “the FTC’s CID has had its intended effect. Because of the CID, Media Matters has decided against pursuing certain stories about the FTC, Chairman Ferguson, and Mr. Musk.”[16]
The court also cited evidence supporting a causal link between Media Matters’ reporting and the issuance of the CID, including public comments made by Chairman Ferguson and his colleagues about Media Matters and the timing of the CID being issued “on the heels of other failed attempts to seek retribution.”[17] The court also found the “proffered nonretaliatory explanation” for the CID to be dubious, because the FTC had failed to explain why it had any reason to believe that Media Matters has information relating to the use of lists to coordinate ad placement, nor does the “sweeping scope” of the CID “square with the proffered reason.”[18]
Further, Judge Sooknanan held that Media Matters had “easily” shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury absent the injunction, because “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”[19] Finally, the court held that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of the injunction, because the FTC “is in no way harmed” by a preliminary injunction that prevents it “from enforcing restrictions likely to be found unconstitutional.”[20] To the contrary, “the system is improved by such an injunction.”[21]
Wiggin and Dana routinely advises clients in connection with the full range of antitrust matters, including potential transactions and representations before the FTC, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, and offices of state attorneys general. Wiggin and Dana also regularly advises clients concerning evolving antitrust and regulatory landscapes.
[1] Media Matters for Am. v. FTC, et al., Civil Action No. 25 – 1959 (SLS) (Aug. 15, 2025); available at Media Matters FTC PI Order.pdf.
[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at 5.
[5] Id. at 5–6.
[6] Id. at 6.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 1, 6.
[9] See Media Matters for Am. v. Bailey, 2024 WL 3924573, at *19 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2024), appeal dismissed sub nom. Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 2025 WL 492257 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13, 2025) (enjoining CIDs served by the Texas and Missouri attorneys general on Media Matters); Media Matters for Am. v. X Corp., 2025 WL 1084715, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2025 (granting Media Matters’ motion for a preliminary injunction against X in part, recognizing 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.”)
[10] Media Matters for Am., Civil Action No. 25 – 1959, at 2, 9.
[11] Id. at 10.
[12] Id. at 12.
[13] Id. at 1, 14–31.
[14] Id. at 1, 31–35. The Court did not consider whether Media Matters was likely to succeed on its Fourth Amendment claim.
[15] Id. at 32-39.
[16] Id. at 3, 31–35.
[17] Id. at 40–42.
[18] Id. at 44–46.
[19] Id. at 46 (citations omitted).
[20] Id. at 47.
[21] Id.