The judge overseeing Elon Musk's crusade against the media owns Tesla

Elon Musk's X, formerly of Twitter, has come under fire from watchdogs who cite hate speech that has come to saturate the platform since it bought it in 2022. The company argues that this investigation is to blame for big advertisers — the ones Musk said . go screw yourself” — abandon ship.

So far, legal attacks on organizations pointing to X's abundance of extremist content have been rebuffed: a judge threw out X's lawsuit against the Center to Fight Digital Hate in March on First Amendment grounds, ruling that Musk's lawyers were trying to stifle free speech with intimidation tactics. Currently, Media Matters for America, an anti-disinformation nonprofit, is taking on a similar case — considered “false” by legal experts — more than one article detailing how the site served up pro-Nazi posts alongside ads, while Musk himself espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. But the space for this fight may be more favorable for X.

This because X v. Media issues for America plays in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where District Judge Reed O'Connor is assigned to the case. (Judge Mark Pittman he renounced himself from the case in November without giving reasons.) O'Connor is the notorious party appointee of George W. Bush, who in 2018 declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in an effort to repeal it entirely (the Supreme Court rejected this widely mocked decision) , and has a long record other decisions that align with right-wing ideology. It would be little surprise if he sympathizes with X's efforts to prevent journalists from reporting accurately how much far-right extremism and misinformation is hosted on the platform.

Media Matters, for their part, filed a lawsuit on June 17, describing how O'Connor, hearing the case, could present a conflict of interest, though it has nothing to do with the judge's political views. Instead, counsel for Elias Law Group and Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher argued two key points: First, that the Tesla automaker is an interested party in this matter since Musk exercises enormous control over that company and full authority over the X, often blurring the lines between the two so that the outcome of this lawsuit affects both Musk and Tesla. Second, that according to his most recent financial disclosures, O'Connor “may own between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of Tesla stock,” which would require a retraction if Tesla is considered an interested party.

That Musk as a public figure is virtually synonymous with X and Tesla's businesses is at the heart of the motion, which asks X to file a certificate naming Tesla and its shareholders as interested parties in the case. “Under Musk's guidance, X routinely uses the time, resources, and even office space of Tesla employees — with documented consequences for Tesla stock,” it says. “Because of this confusion and in light of the public's reasonable perception that both X and Tesla are stand-ins for Musk, Tesla's financial interest in this lawsuit is clear. X's win or loss will necessarily affect Tesla, including its stock price.” Additionally, the filing argues, if Musk testifies in the lawsuit, it would have a significant effect on the value of his companies.

The formulation of the claim that O'Connor has a financial interest in a case has a very recent precedent. In March, the judge was forced to recuse himself from hearing a lawsuit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and bank trade groups seeking to block a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ruling that caps most credit card late fees at $8. That decision came shortly before the government watchdog group Accountable.US released one statement revealing that O'Connor had “invested up to tens of thousands of dollars” in Chamber of Commerce member banks, including Capital One, Frost Bank, Visa and Commerce Bank. The group also noted O'Connor's “longstanding ties to the Federalist Society,” a conservative legal organization that has received between $800,000 and $1.1 million in donations from the Chamber since 2008. After O'Connor was excused from the case, Accountable. The US called this a “last minute” decision. he should have come earlier.

O'Connor, whose judicial deputy did not return a request for comment on Media Matters' latest motion, has the option to withdraw from hearing this lawsuit at any time. Meanwhile, X has until July 8 to respond to the motion calling on them to recognize Tesla and its shareholders as interested parties. Media Matters and their attorney could not be reached for comment Rolling rock about their legal strategy.

Even without O'Connor on the case, Media Matters will have to face another judge in the largely conservative Northern District of Texas, an arena that will be more receptive to X's efforts to censor progressive institutions that criticize it . Media Matters scored a major victory in April when D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta blocked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from launching an investigation into the nonprofit after X's lawsuit. Even so, amid of the ongoing legal battle — which may well reach the Supreme Court — the agency was forced to lay off more than a dozen employees last month. Media Matters President Angelo Carusone he said The cuts were necessary “to ensure we are sustainable, robust and successful for whatever lies ahead”.