RCFP says Texas probe into Media Matters could reach editorial judgment

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says a Texas consumer-protection probe into Media Matters raises First Amendment concerns because it targets reporting and editorial materials.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a friend-of-the-court brief last week in Media Matters for America v. Paxton, a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The group says Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s consumer-protection inquiry into Media Matters for America threatens press freedom because it reaches reporting-related material rather than commercial conduct.

The challenged demand seeks internal communications tied to a November 2023 Media Matters article. RCFP argues that consumer-protection law should not be used to police journalism-like editorial choices. The group says allowing that kind of inquiry could put news organizations at risk if state officials treat coverage they dislike as an unfair business practice.

According to RCFP’s account, the conflict began after Media Matters published an article showing images from X of extremist content next to ads from large companies. X sued Media Matters and reporter Eric Hananoki. Days later, Paxton announced an investigation into Media Matters for potential fraudulent activity under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Paxton then issued a civil investigative demand seeking material from Media Matters, including internal communications about the reporting, RCFP says. Media Matters sued in federal district court in Washington, D.C., to block the demand. Judge Amit Mehta issued an injunction blocking the CID, and Paxton appealed.

RCFP’s brief argues that Paxton does not claim the article was false. Instead, the group says the theory appears to be that the piece showed an “artificial” rather than an “organic” experience on X, which RCFP says amounts to a claim that the article was “unfair.” The organization says that is the wrong test for speech that looks like reporting or editorial judgment.

The brief cites First Amendment precedent, including Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, and says an overly broad commercial-speech rule could reach “all aspects” of a for-profit news organization’s operations, “from the selection of news stories to the choice of editorial position.” It also points to the Supreme Court’s Moody v. NetChoice decision, quoting the court as saying “a State may not interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance.”

RCFP says this is the third challenge to a Texas civil investigative demand under the state’s deceptive trade practices law in which it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief. The group says it supported Yelp in a 2024 case involving notices posted to crisis pregnancy center pages, and it backed Twitter in 2021 and 2022 in CID challenges involving content moderation information.

The D.C. Circuit appeal is next, and the court will decide whether Paxton’s demand can move forward. RCFP’s Technology and Press Freedom Project said the case sits at the intersection of technology and press freedom, with Gabe Rottman, Grayson Clary and Emily Hockett involved in that work.

Sources

• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Editorial note: This article was prepared with AI assistance and includes source attribution for reader review.