The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has denied a request for a stay in the ongoing legal battle between Media Matters for America and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This decision means a preliminary injunction against the FTC’s civil investigative demand remains in place while the case continues. The court’s order, issued on October 23, 2025, signals a complex legal fight ahead, with potential implications for First Amendment rights and government investigations.
The Heart of the Dispute
At the center of the case is a civil investigative demand the FTC issued to Media Matters. The non-profit media watchdog group alleges the demand is retaliatory, stemming from its reporting on corporate advertisements appearing alongside antisemitic posts on X (formerly Twitter) and Elon Musk’s endorsement of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Media Matters argues the FTC is targeting them for their protected speech, violating their First Amendment rights.
The FTC, on the other hand, argues the demand is part of a legitimate investigation, and that the district court should not have intervened at this early stage. The agency is seeking information related to potential violations of consumer protection laws, specifically regarding advertiser boycotts.
The Court’s Ruling: No Stay, But a Reminder of the Stakes
The Court of Appeals’ decision to deny the stay is a key development. To grant a stay, the court typically considers four factors: the likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal, the potential for irreparable injury if the stay is not granted, the impact of the stay on other parties, and the public interest.
The court found the FTC had not made a strong enough showing that it was likely to win its appeal. The court emphasized the “unique and (thus far) undisputed facts” of the case, which it said supported the district court’s preliminary finding that Media Matters’ speech likely caused the FTC’s demand. The court acknowledged the preliminary nature of the ruling and the deferential standard of review.
The court’s order also highlights the importance of First Amendment rights, noting that the loss of these freedoms, even temporarily, constitutes irreparable injury.
A Closer Look at the Facts
The court’s opinion details a series of events that led up to the current legal dispute. Media Matters’ reporting in November 2023, which was critical of X and Musk, appears to be the catalyst. Following the report, Elon Musk publicly vowed to sue Media Matters, and other actions followed. The court noted that the Texas Attorney General announced an investigation into Media Matters, and X Corp. filed suit in federal district court against Media Matters.
The opinion also delves into the actions of Andrew N. Ferguson, who was appointed Chair of the Federal Trade Commission. The court cited statements by Ferguson, before and after his appointment, that suggested an intent to investigate advertiser boycotts. The court also noted that the civil investigative demand issued to Media Matters was unusually broad, seeking a wide range of documents and information.
Dissenting Opinion: A Different Perspective
Circuit Judge Walker dissented from the denial of the stay, offering a different interpretation of the facts. Judge Walker argued that the FTC’s investigation was a legitimate response to concerns about collusive advertiser boycotts, and that the district court’s preliminary injunction was unwarranted. Judge Walker highlighted the political context, noting the Biden administration’s concerns about misinformation and the potential for private actors to censor speech. Judge Walker also pointed out that Ferguson’s statements focused on stopping illegal conduct, not punishing certain viewpoints.
The Road Ahead
The denial of the stay does not end the case; it simply means the preliminary injunction remains in effect while the appeal continues. The court’s decision suggests Media Matters has a strong argument that the FTC’s investigation was retaliatory, but the case is far from over.
The court recognized that the burden remains on Media Matters to prove the FTC acted with retaliatory motive. The FTC may also attempt to show that the demand would have been issued regardless of Media Matters’ speech.
This case is likely to continue to attract attention, as it touches on important issues of free speech, government investigations, and the role of media watchdogs in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.