In November 2023, nonprofit journalism organization Media Matters reported that companies’ advertisements were appearing next to antisemitic and other offensive content on X (formerly Twitter). Several major companies subsequently pulled their ads from the platform, prompting criticism from some conservative political figures and commentators. The attorneys general of Missouri and Texas soon opened investigations into Media Matters for allegedly fraudulent business practices. Missouri also sued the organization for refusing to cooperate with the state’s investigation. Federal judges blocked both states’ efforts, deeming them unlawful attempts to retaliate against Media Matters’s First Amendment–protected activity.
The Federal Trade Commission, under the leadership of a newly appointed chair with a long-standing history of political opposition to Media Matters, subsequently issued a civil investigative demand to Media Matters. The demand ordered Media Matters to produce extensive materials to the federal government, including internal editorial communications, research documents, and correspondence related to its reporting.
Media Matters sued the FTC in federal court in Washington, arguing that the demand sought to burden its constitutionally protected speech, violating the First Amendment’s prohibition on retaliation and the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. On August 15, 2025, the district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the civil investigative demand. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is now considering the FTC’s appeal of that ruling. The appeal raises fundamental questions about federal agencies’ ability to use their investigative authority to burden or chill disfavored speech, and courts’ power to provide meaningful, quick relief to the targets of retaliatory investigations.
A diverse array of friend-of-the-court briefs — from media and news organizations, civil liberties and civil rights groups, former federal Republican executive officials, and think tanks spanning the political spectrum — were filed in support of Media Matters, in addition to a critical brief filed in support of neither party. These briefs raise overlapping concerns, emphasizing the structural, constitutional, and practical risks posed when federal agencies use their regulatory authority to retaliate rather than enforce the law in a neutral manner. We summarize each brief’s most prominent or unique points below.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance’s brief, submitted in support of neither party, argues that Media Matters did not have to exhaust the FTC’s internal adjudication process before filing its lawsuit. As the brief explains, requiring Media Matters to go through those processes to vindicate its constitutional rights would violate Supreme Court precedent and undermine separation‑of‑powers principles by allowing agencies to be the judges of their own cases. The center filed this brief on its own behalf.
FIRE, the ACLU, and ACLU-DC argue that coercive and retaliatory investigations can infringe the First Amendment by chilling protected speech. Their brief explains that sweeping information demands, prolonged uncertainty, and the implicit threat of enforcement can deter media and advocacy organizations from engaging in protected speech, even in the absence of the government formally penalizing them. It urges the court to ensure that targets of unconstitutional investigations have access to timely judicial review. FIRE served as counsel for this brief.
This brief from the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy organization dedicated to individual liberty and limited government, cautions that the Constitution forbids the government not only from directly punishing protected speech but also “jawboning” and other forms of covert retaliation designed to chill disfavored expression. It also explains how covert punishment often leads to overt punishment. The Cato Institute filed this brief on its own behalf.
Society for the Rule of Law Institute
The Society for the Rule of Law Institute, a nonprofit organization founded by lawyers and former officials from prior Republican administrations, explains in its brief that the FTC cannot use a civil investigative demand as a retaliatory tool while also controlling when and where a target may obtain judicial review. As the amici warn, the FTC’s insistence that Media Matters wait until the agency files an enforcement action to seek judicial relief would effectively give the agency “the keys to the courthouse,” allowing it to decide not only if but when and where Media Matters’s constitutional claims may be heard. Perry Law was counsel for this brief.
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Nine Civil Rights Organizations
This brief, filed by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and nine other civil right groups, describes Media Matters’s actions as a First Amendment-protected antidiscrimination boycott aimed at combatting hate speech online. The amici explain the harms online hate speech and discrimination present for people of color and warn of the chilling effects retaliatory investigations can have on efforts to combat those harms. The amici also explain that standard antitrust enforcement principles do not support the FTC’s investigative demands. The Lawyers’ Committee and Benedict Law Group are co-counsel for this brief.
Coalition of 17 Nonprofit Media, Research, and Advocacy Organizations
This brief — filed by 17 nonprofit media, research, and advocacy organizations, including the Project on Government Oversight and Freedom of the Press Foundation — explains that nonprofit media and advocacy groups are particularly vulnerable to coercive and vindictive investigative tactics, like prolonged or unfounded government probes, which can chill their speech and burden their associational and editorial activities. The amici warn that the investigatory process can operate as a form of punishment in its own right, even if civil investigative demands uncover no misconduct and do not lead to further litigation. Albert Sellars represented the coalition.
Coalition of 15 News and Media Corporations
This brief, filed on behalf of 15 major news and media corporations, including The New York Times Company and the Associated Press, emphasizes the chilling effect of improperly issued civil investigative demands on journalism writ large. It describes the FTC’s actions as an unprecedented intrusion into the editorial and reporting processes of news organizations and warns that allowing such investigatory overreach undermines the press’s ability to hold public and private actors accountable. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Media & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School were co-counsel for this brief.
