JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has taken legal action to prevent Media Matters from transferring a Missouri court case to a Washington D.C. court.
Bailey filed the opposition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on May 8 after Media Matters recently filed a motion in D.C. federal court to stop Bailey’s investigation into its alleged fraudulent activities.
Bailey filed the motion to ensure the case remains under Missouri jurisdiction.
"Media Matters is attempting to shut down Missouri courts by filing a motion in a D.C. court to halt our investigation and lawsuit into their fraudulent practices,” Bailey said in a provided statement. "D.C. courts have no control over Missouri courts. I have filed a motion to keep this suit in Missouri, where it belongs. I will not allow Media Matters to run to a D.C. court to evade Missouri law."
Media Matters has been under scrutiny following accusations that it manipulated X’s — formerly Twitter — algorithm to place advertisers’ content alongside manufactured controversial posts.
This allegedly caused X to suffer significant financial losses when affected advertisers withdrew their support. Media Matters has been vocal in its criticism of X for not censoring certain viewpoints.
Bailey initiated his investigation in November 2023 after discovering evidence that Media Matters solicited donations from Missouri residents under false pretenses to target X. These actions, he contends in the legal brief, are believed to violate the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Bailey argues against Media Matters’ attempt to shift the legal battle from Missouri to a Washington D.C. federal court, noting that the attempt is an extraordinary attack on federalism and an attempt to circumvent state judicial processes.
Bailey contends that Media Matters does not dispute its ability to present all claims and defenses in Missouri’s court, where it has already engaged in legal actions.
Despite this, Bailey wrote, Media Matters now seeks intervention from a D.C. court to stop Missouri’s courts from adjudicating the case, which Bailey deems a transparent effort to gain an unfair advantage.
Bailey cites in the opposition that the U.S. Supreme Court’s stance that such federal interventions impose significant burdens on federal courts, as highlighted in Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
He also notes that federal courts traditionally reject attempts to challenge state subpoenas when state proceedings are ongoing, following principles from cases like Younger v. Harris.
Bailey argues that Media Matters cannot meet the criteria for obtaining temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.
Bailey also disagrees with Media Matters’ claim of injury from litigating in Missouri, highlighting that the nonprofit has already engaged with Missouri’s legal system by seeking relief under state law.
Media Matters’ assertion that Missouri courts lack personal jurisdiction over it is countered by its significant activities in the state, including publishing articles, distributing newsletters, and soliciting donations, Bailey wrote.
"If this Court has jurisdiction over the Attorney General because he mailed one document, then Missouri courts have jurisdiction over Media Matters ten times over," Bailey wrote.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case number: 1:24-cv-00147