Thread by @BurnhamDC

Lets talk (again) about two tiers of justice.  On Friday a judge enjoined the @FTC from investigating Media Matters, finding the investigation likely violates the First Amendment.  This isn't just immunity from prosecution; it's immunity from *investigation.*  Unpacked below. 1/

This case arises from the notorious advertiser boycott of online platforms.  It's easy to forget, but not long ago many companies refused to advertise on platforms--in particular, @X--unless those platforms suppressed, eg, conservative speech or true information about Covid.  2/

This boycott, if real, likely violated the antitrust laws.  And the nonprofit Media Matters is alleged to have been a ringleader in the boycott.  That's the basic allegation @elonmusk's suit made and it is facially credible.  3/

How do you figure out whether allegations are credible?  You investigate them.  That's what the @FTC is trying to do--conduct an investigation to determine whether Media Matters did, in fact, organize an illegal boycott of certain platforms. 4/

Back to this case.  Media Matters--like any investigative target--does not want to be investigated.  So it sued in DDC to enjoin the *investigation itself.*  Media Matters says it has a First Amendment right to not be investigated *at all.*  5/

The district court agreed. The gist of Judge Sooknanan's opinion is that because certain @FTC officials expressed views that the alleged boycott is serious and that Media Matters engages in poor behavior, they are constitutionally foreclosed from conducting an investigation. 6/

First, high level. As we all know, the Biden DOJ conducted a sweeping criminal investigation and prosecution of @realDonaldTrump. Consider the outrage if a district court had enjoined the *investigation itself* on grounds of First Amendment retaliation. 7/

Such an injunction would have been eminently warranted under this opinion's standard. There is no serious question that the Biden DOJ pursued its cases against @realDonaldTrump because he had been President and was running to be President again. 8/

Nor did President Biden play coy about @realDonaldTrump and @realDonaldTrump's constitutionally protected political activities. Yet here, fears about a "partisan bent" stop the investigation before it starts. Two tiers of justice? 9/

Judge Sooknanan relies on the investigation chilling Media Matter's First Amendment activity. Does anyone seriously contest that the avalanche of federal and state prosecutions of @realDonaldTrump chilled his activity? Time in the courtroom is time off the campaign trail. 10/

The Judge also claims that the timing of the CID suggests it is about retaliating for speech rather than enforcing the antitrust laws. That doesn't make much sense, since @AFergusonFTC has only been the Chairman since January; when else would this investigation have begun? 11/

But even setting that aside, lets go back to @realDonaldTrump. AG Garland did *not* appoint Jack Smith at the beginning of the Biden Administration, suggesting he saw no need for an elaborate j6 investigation into the former President. 12/

Only in January of 2023 did AG Garland take that step, years into the Administration, after @realDonaldTrump had announced his reelection campaign, and after months of leaks about how President Biden was upset that AG Garland hadn't acted. Talk about a partisan bent! 13/

Perhaps sensing this weakness, the court next uses the rapidity of the investigation against the @FTC, claiming its quick launch shows bias. Yet again, we have a district judge saying that--in effect--new political leadership isn't allowed to actually control the government. 14/

Finally, Judge Sooknanan claims it is "pretext" that the @FTC is concerned about advertiser boycotts. So statements concerned about boycotts both show "bias" and are also conjured pretext? Perhaps this pretzeled reasoning is ... pretext to give an assist to Media Matters? 15/

Bottom line. District judges continue deploying aggressive, motivated reasoning to disable the elected President and his appointees from enforcing the law. This destabilizes the system and puts yet more pressure on the Supreme Court. Here's another the Justices will need to fix. /end

Here's a link to the opinion: cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/D8File/…