Episode 48: Media Matters for America (MMFA) v. Federal Trade Commission
Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, argued before Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins, and Gregory G. Katsas of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 13, 2026. Argued by Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky (on behalf of Media Matters of America) and H. Thomas Byron, III (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission).
Case Summary, adapted from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee Media Matters:
When Elon Musk purchased X, he modified the rules about violent posts and misinformation, laid off staff responsible for moderating the site, and reinstated accounts of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. As a result, MMFA alleged that extremist content surged.
MMFA is a nonprofit media watchdog that chronicled what it described as the increasingly disturbing content on X. In November 2023, one of Media Matters’ articles about X went viral. It claimed advertisements for some companies, including Apple and IBM, were still appearing alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content.
The article struck a nerve and, along with other reporting about X, has made MMFA a target for Musk and his allies, including FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who blamed the organization for advertisers leaving the site. Musk immediately vowed to bring a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against MMFA.
Musk’s company also filed suit in the Northern District of Texas—not in California, as required by X’s terms of service. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller—today, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—called on “conservative state Attorneys General” to investigate MMFA for its speech. In response, Texas and Missouri issued intrusive document demands to MMFA.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC investigation of MMFA, finding that it violated the First Amendment. The FTC appealed.
Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee MMFA:
- Whether the district court had jurisdiction.
- Whether Media Matters has a cause of action.
- Whether the FTC forfeited its exhaustion argument.
- Whether the district court clearly erred in finding retaliation.
- Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the CID would deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing the equities.
Resources:
- Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee – Media Matters for America
- Brief for the Appellants – Federal Trade Commission, et al.
- CourtListener Docket
- District Court Opinion Granting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Listen to the argument here:
The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform.
