Even the Fifth Circuit is questioning Judge Reed O'Connor — and Elon Musk — today
A Sunday morning ruling protects Media Matters from needing to disclose its donors to X Corp. for now. Also, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Sunday morning blocked an order from U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor that would have required Media Matters to turn over donor information to X Corp. in the company’s ongoing lawsuit against Media Matters for its coverage of Twitter/X.
The three-judge panel hearing Media Matters’s request for a stay of O’Connor’s order pending appeal had a far-right majority, too, with Judges Jerry Smith (Reagan) and Kurt Englehardt (Trump) among the judges deciding the request. Judge James Graves, an Obama appointee, was the third judge on the panel.
Despite that far-right tilt, the court concluded, “Because X Corp.’s discovery requests are disproportional to the needs of the case, Media Matters is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal.“
The ruling is a rebuke to O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee who is best known for his rulings repeatedly attacking the Affordable Care Act and LGBTQ people.
The panel, however, did repeatedly question everyone’s actions in the case: the scope and breadth of X Corp.’s discovery requests and Elon Musk’s statements, some of Media Matters actions (or inaction) in response, and some of O’Connor’s rulings thus far in the case — including, ultimately, his order that Media Matters comply with the discovery requests in question.
While not ruling on the appeal itself, the panel did make clear the substantial First Amendment issues at play in forcing an organization like Media Matters to turn over the names of its donors to an adversarial party. What’s more, the panel made clear that Musk’s aggressive attacks on those who oppose him are relevant to the consideration of this appeal:
![We doubt that X Corp. needs the identity of Media Matters’s every donor, big or small, to advance its theories. Nor does it need the full residen- tial addresses for any of those stated purposes. Conversely, Media Matters and its donors would bear a heavy burden if Media Matters had to release this information. It could enable others to harass or intimidate Media Matters or its donors. Indeed, X Corp.’s owner, Elon Musk, has said that X Corp. would “pursue not just [Media Matters] but anyone funding that organi- zation. I want to be clear about that anyone funding that organization, will be, we will pursue them.”](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F73b14cb8-ca67-4dd8-a8d7-8e06efcdfe48_1030x476.png "We doubt that X Corp. needs the identity of Media Matters’s every donor, big or small, to advance its theories. Nor does it need the full residen- tial addresses for any of those stated purposes. Conversely, Media Matters and its donors would bear a heavy burden if Media Matters had to release this information. It could enable others to harass or intimidate Media Matters or its donors. Indeed, X Corp.’s owner, Elon Musk, has said that X Corp. would “pursue not just [Media Matters] but anyone funding that organi- zation. I want to be clear about that anyone funding that organization, will be, we will pursue them.”")
This is not resolution of the discovery dispute, which remains on appeal, let alone the underlying lawsuit against Media Matters — all of which goes a long way to showing the dangers of such lawsuits for those wishing to hold powerful figures like Musk accountable. It also could become another situation where the Fifth Circuit pulls back some of the most extreme actions from a district court judge while nonetheless upholding aspects of the case that still benefit the right and/or move the law significantly rightward.
The panel also did not delve into any of the ethical questions surrounding O’Connor hearing the case at all, as those issues were not before the appeals court. As Law Dork has reported, however, O’Connor’s extensive individual stock investments have led to repeated entanglements with Musk. O’Connor used to invest in Twitter directly, continued to invest in Tesla as of the end of 2023, and was also invested in a company as of the end of 2023 that has a fund invested in X Corp.
The ruling is a win for Media Matters, though, and when Musk can’t get someone like Smith to go along with him — and when O’Connor gets pushback from the Fifth Circuit like this — that’s a pretty good sign that they’ve gone too far.
The move comes as government investigations and lawsuits against Musk business entities are proceeding in agencies and in court, as those businesses are advancing their own litigation against government agencies and other businesses, and as Musk is potentially creating new problems for himself with his extensive efforts to support Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
On Saturday evening, Musk gave a $1 million, reportedly from his America PAC, to a man who was registered to vote in Pennsylvania. Of that, UCLA School of Law professor Rick Hasen wrote at Election Law Blog, “Though maybe some of the other things Musk was doing were of murky legality, this one is clearly illegal.”
It’s disturbing. Beyond the legal questions, it’s all but an effort to buy the election — just like Musk thinks he can buy anything else.
What’s more, Musk has clear reasons for doing so, perhaps best summed up in an extensive Musk report published by The New York Times’s investigation team on Sunday: “Elon Musk’s influence over the federal government is extraordinary, and extraordinarily lucrative.”
Given Musk’s financial support for Trump’s candidacy, that influence — and its financial benefits — surely will be protected and likely increased going forward should Trump win, making scrutiny of Musk’s actions now all the more important and justified.
Closing my tabs
This Sunday, here are the tabs I’m closing:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Law Dork to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.