Why This Case Matters
With oral argument in Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission scheduled for April 13, 2026, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law recently filed an amicus brief defending the right of civil rights organizations to advocate against online hate and discrimination without fear of retaliatory government action.
At the center of this case is a sweeping civil investigative demand issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Media Matters because of its reporting on hate speech, a demand that seeks expansive internal records in connection with advertiser boycotts and alleged antitrust violations.
But this case is about more than one organization.
It raises a fundamental question: Can the government use its investigative powers in ways that chill advocacy aimed at combating hate and discrimination?
For civil rights organizations, the answer matters deeply.
“When the government uses its investigative power in ways that burden advocacy, it threatens more than one organization—it sends a warning to every group working to challenge hate and discrimination. Civil rights advocacy is protected expression, not unlawful coordination,” said Leah Frazier, director of the Digital Justice Initiative, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
What’s at Stake
Online hate speech and discrimination continue to disproportionately harm Black communities and other communities of color. Civil rights groups regularly speak out, publish research, engage companies, and advocate for corporate accountability, including when platforms fail to address harmful content.
That advocacy sometimes includes encouraging advertisers or companies to examine where their dollars are spent.
Our brief explains that boycotts organized for social or political change, particularly those aimed at addressing discrimination, are protected under the First Amendment. Civil rights advocacy is not a commercial conspiracy. It is core democratic participation.
When government investigatory tools are used in ways that burden or intimidate advocacy organizations, the effect can be chilling. Nonprofits with limited resources may be forced to divert time and funding away from mission-driven work to respond to expansive document demands and legal compliance.
The result? Fewer voices speaking out against injustice.
Who We’re Standing With
The Lawyers’ Committee, along with co-counsel Brendan Benedict of Benedict Law Group PLLC, filed this brief alongside nine national civil rights organizations representing diverse communities across the country. Together, we share a concern that allowing broad investigative demands to target advocacy work could weaken protections that civil rights movements have relied on for decades.
This case is not simply about one investigation. It is about safeguarding the ability of nonprofits and public interest organizations to advocate, boldly and without fear, for racial justice and equality.
What Happens Next
Oral argument is scheduled for April 13, 2026.
The court’s decision will have implications not only for Media Matters, but for advocacy organizations nationwide. At stake is whether civil rights groups can continue to challenge discrimination and hold powerful institutions accountable without facing retaliatory burdens.
We will continue to fight, inside and outside the courts, to ensure that constitutional protections remain strong for those working to advance justice.
Explore this and other 2026 amicus brief filings on our website