School, college and other closings for Monday

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

A federal judge in Texas overseeing a high-profile lawsuit filed by billionaire Elon Musk against the watchdog group Media Matters was buying and selling stock in Musk’s Tesla company in 2023, the year Musk filed the suit, according to financial disclosure reports recently made public.

 that U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas had made an investment in Tesla of between $15,001 and $50,000. O’Connor has delivered a string of decisions in the Media Matters lawsuit in favor of Musk, who argues the advocacy group disparaged X, his social media site.

 required of all federal judges. But questions remained about whether the judge could have later sold his stock in Tesla — and if so, whether that happened before or after O’Connor accepted the Media Matters case in November 2023.

While Tesla is not directly part of Musk’s Media Matters suit, legal ethics experts 

 himself from the case, since the outcome of a lawsuit involving one of Musk’s companies could, in turn, have an effect on the stock value of another part of his empire, including electric vehicle company Tesla, which represents the majority of his wealth.

 form filed with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts covering 2023’s calendar year shows that O’Connor bought and sold Tesla stock that year, with his position in Tesla still totaling up to $50,000. All three transactions were made before November: O’Connor bought Tesla stock in January, sold some in June, and bought again in September.

According to that filing, O’Connor did not make any Tesla transactions that year after taking the case in November. He has not bought or sold Tesla stock in the first few months of 2024, according to the most recent publicly-available financial disclosures.

Richard Painter, an ethics expert at the University of Minnesota Law School, pointed to

 that require recusal when a judge, or family member, can financially benefit from the outcome of a case.

“The relevant question is whether the Tesla stock price could be substantially affected by the outcome of this case,” said Painter, adding that while any such effect remains uncertain, “it possibly could if Musk’s reputation is both at issue in the case and important to Tesla's stock price.”

Neither O’Connor nor Media Matters returned a request for comment.

In their lawsuit, Musk’s legal team claims Media Matters produced an “intentionally deceptive report” highlighting neo-Nazi content on X, which helped set in motion an advertiser boycott of the platform.

In August, O’Connor rejected Media Matters’ attempt to dismiss the complaint, ruling that Musk’s lawyers had sufficiently argued that the group had acted with “actual malice.” That provided momentum to X’s attorneys, who had also received approval from O’Connor to begin the process of requesting thousands of pages of internal documents from Media Matters.

Just before that ruling, Media Matters asked that X reveal all parties that could have a financial interest in the outcome of the case, noting O’Connor’s Tesla investment. Evidence in the case, Media Matters contends, including potential testimony by Musk himself, could affect Tesla’s stock price.

O’Connor dismissed this request, ruling that his Tesla stock is not relevant to the case.

“First, there is no evidence that shows Tesla has a direct financial interest in the outcome of this case,” O’Connor 

. “Tesla neither directly nor indirectly holds equity in X, Tesla is not a director or advisor, and it does not participate in the affairs of X.”

In addition to siding with Musk, O'Connor ordered that Media Matters pay X's legal fees over the disclosure request. O'Connor 

 an attempt to "force a backdoor recusal," the judge wrote. "Gamesmanship of this sort is inappropriate." 

 himself on a separate Musk case against the World Federation of Advertisers. The judge is an investor in Unilever, one of the defendants in the case.

But he did not step aside from the Media Matters lawsuit.

None of the parties in either Musk suit are based in Texas, but lawyers for Musk wrote in filings that the cases were filed in O’Connor’s district since X has users in Texas.

O’Connor’s involvement in the Musk cases has led to criticism over alleged “judge shopping,” or the practice of filing a suit in a district in which a litigant hopes for a favorable outcome.

“It’s particularly extreme,” Jennifer Ahearn, senior counsel for the Brennan Center's Judiciary Program, told NPR 

 about judge shopping in northern Texas. “It has become a problem for the judiciary in a way that it hasn’t been in the past.”

In remarks O’Connor delivered recently at a Fort Worth, Tex. conference for the conservative group the Federalist Society, O’Connor 

“I am confident you will find that Fort Worth is a very welcoming city. And, no, I don't mean for judge shopping, as some like to think,” O’Connor told conference attendees.

Business and Economic News

Crime, Law and Justice

Courts

Homepage

Bobby Allyn

Author

The judge, Reed O’Connor, in Fort Worth, Tex., has rejected calls for him to step down from the high-profile case Musk filed against Media Matters, a watchdog group.

New records show Texas judge on X case didn't sell his Tesla shares after taking the suit

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox