Missouri Attorney General Andy Bailey has hit an obstacle in his attempt to investigate Media Matters for America (MMFA), courtesy of U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta. Bailey aimed to scrutinize the liberal outlet for what he described as “aggravated mean to Twitter” and causing distress to Elon Musk. However, in a recent ruling, Judge Mehta issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Bailey from enforcing his subpoenas against MMFA.
The issue began when MMFA published a report showcasing the proximity of major brands’ advertisements to pro-Nazi content on Twitter. This prompted Musk to threaten a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against the nonprofit. Subsequently, both Bailey and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed their intentions to pursue legal action against MMFA. Paxton was the first to issue a subpoena to MMFA in DC and to one of its reporters residing in Maryland.
Judge Mehta had already enjoined Paxton’s subpoenas, leading Bailey to craft what he believed was a more strategic approach. He issued his own subpoena to MMFA and simultaneously moved to enforce it through Missouri’s Circuit Court of Cole County. The state court action sought to preclude federal intervention by arguing that MMFA’s non-compliance in the Paxton case indicated it would defy Bailey’s demands as well.
In response, MMFA filed a supplemental complaint to block Bailey’s subpoena, defining it as related to the Paxton case since Bailey admitted his demands were nearly identical. Bailey contended that the federal court in DC lacked personal jurisdiction over him, asserting that MMFA’s donors potentially domiciled in Missouri implied consent to legal action in the state. Judge Mehta dismissed these claims, noting Bailey had utilized DC’s process servers for his communications with MMFA.
Bailey further argued that the federal court should abstain from intervening under Younger abstention principles, allowing the state court proceedings to continue. Judge Mehta was equally unconvinced by this argument, resulting in his decision to enjoin Bailey’s subpoenas. The ruling underscores ongoing jurisdictional and procedural complexities in legal battles involving state officials and media organizations.
To read more about the court’s actions and the legal intricacies of this case, you can visit the original piece on Above The Law.