Connect with us

News

Elon Musk is bringing lawsuits to Texas. A judge with Tesla stock keeps hearing them

Published

on

Elon Musk is bringing lawsuits to Texas. A judge with Tesla stock keeps hearing them

U.S. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor has been a longtime active member of the Federalist Society. In 2018, he spoke on a panel at the annual Texas Chapters Conference.

The Federalist Society/Screenshot by NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

The Federalist Society/Screenshot by NPR

Billionaire Elon Musk seems to have found a new favorite federal judge: Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas.

Musk’s social media company X has filed two major lawsuits against groups he sees as antagonists, and O’Connor is presiding over both of them, even though none of the parties is based in Texas.

So far, O’Connor has delivered stunningly pro-Musk decisions, which have gained widespread attention.

Advertisement

What has garnered less attention: O’Connor’s investment in Tesla, between “$15,001 and $50,000” of Tesla stock, according to his most recent publicly available financial disclosure filing.

That investment has fueled questions over O’Connor’s fairness as a judge, since the outcome of the suits filed by Musk’s X could impact his business empire.

“It is absolutely reasonable to question his impartiality in a case where the party and interest is a principal in a company the judge owns stock in,” said James Sample, a professor who specializes in judicial ethics at Hofstra University’s law school.

Others have questioned whether Musk’s legal team intentionally aimed to take their cases to O’Connor’s court — something known as “forum shopping” — in hopes of a sympathetic outcome.

The practice is controversial, but not illegal. Federal rules dictating where a lawsuit can be filed are broad, said Jennifer Ahearn, senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program.

Advertisement

“They’re taking advantage of those openings in a way that is not common,” Ahearn said. “A reason why you don’t see that more is because you often don’t find both judges willing to accept these kinds of situations and parties willing to accept the wrath of the judges for doing that.”

But this judge, according to Ahearn, appears to be the opposite: willing to take on cases in his Texas district that would not ordinarily land there.

O’Connor, a member of the influential conservative legal group the Federalist Society, was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2007. He has developed a reputation for handing down legal victories to Republicans, notably ruling against the Affordable Care Act and striking down federal gun regulations.

Now, O’Connor has taken on two cases from another conservative, who happens to be the richest person in the world who is using O’Connor’s court to attack perceived enemies.

O’Connor did not return multiple requests for comment. Musk did not, either.

Advertisement

Musk’s suit is draining Media Matters of cash

O’Connor is now in charge of two of Musk’s most high-profile legal crusades.

One of the cases, filed this week by Musk’s X, claims a consortium of advertisers that yanked ads from the platform illegally conspired against the social media site.

The repercussions of the case were almost instantaneous.

Fearing that the lawsuit would drain its finances, the World Federation of Advertisers said on Friday it would dissolve its brand safety initiative, known as the Global Alliance for Responsible Media.

Brands Unilever, Mars, CVS and Orsted are also named as defendants.

Advertisement

The second lawsuit was filed in November by Musk’s X, claiming liberal watchdog group Media Matters released a deceptive report about major advertisers appearing alongside pro-Nazi posts. The suit cited contract violations and business disparagement, a legal term for derogatory statements that harm a company.

The cost of turning over vast numbers of documents in the case, a process known as discovery, has already cost the nonprofit of about 100 people millions of dollars and forced it to lay off about 14 staffers.

Lawyers for Media Matters wrote in an email to Musk’s legal team that the document production has so far been “expansive and intrusive,” comparing the effort to “harassment,” according to legal filings, which show Musk’s legal team requesting the personal bank records of rank-and-file employees.

Five months ago, lawyers for Media Matters asked O’Connor to rule on what is often the first major hurdle of a lawsuit: a motion to dismiss determining whether Musk’s suit has any merit or not.

O’Connor green-lit the discovery process, but he still has not ruled on the lawsuit’s merits.

Advertisement

Allegations of “forum shopping” lodged at Musk

Like with the Media Matters case, neither X, which is listed in the suits as a Nevada corporation, nor any of the defendants are based in Texas.

But Musk’s legal team justified filing the Media Matters case in Texas by saying the nonprofit “routinely contacts” Texans asking them to subscribe to the group’s content and that, in the second case, the advertisers have a “substantial volume of business” in Texas.

Forum shopping accusations have recently come under scrutiny in the northern district of Texas, in part because the district is distinct.

In most parts of the country, lawsuits are randomly assigned to judges. But in northern Texas, judges take on suits based on which division of the district they are filed in. That can allow parties to almost cherry-pick a judge, according to Ahearn with the Brennan Center for Justice.

“It’s particularly extreme,” Ahearn said of forum shopping in northern Texas. “It has become a problem for the judiciary in a way that it hasn’t been in the past.”

Advertisement

Something else that makes the cases in Texas unique is that laws that protect people and groups from meritless lawsuits do not apply in Texas’ federal courts, under a 2019 appeals court decision. That effectively means that if Musk loses the cases, he will not have to pay the defendants’ legal fees, as he would in many states.

Records say Judge O’Connor is a Tesla investor

Another issue has raised concern among legal ethics experts: O’Connor appears to be an investor in Tesla, another company owned by Musk.

It is unclear whether O’Connor has sold his investment of up to $50,000 in Tesla stock, because the judge’s disclosure form covering the 2023 calendar year is not publicly available. He has requested a filing extension, according to an official with the administrative office of U.S. courts who was not authorized to speak on the record.

In May, an NPR investigation found that disclosure forms for judges are often missing, or late, for various reasons. As a result, potential conflicts of interest, like stock holdings or even gifts of luxury travel, are hidden from public view.

Media Matters lawyers have seized on O’Connor’s disclosure, saying rulings on what evidence the judge allows in the case could impact Tesla’s stock price. They argue that testimony or documents revealing Musk’s decision-making process could be made public.

Advertisement

“Such evidence has the potential to directly harm investor confidence in Musk — and thereby drive down Tesla’s share price. This is not speculation: History has shown that when Musk speaks, Tesla’s stock price responds,” Media Matters lawyer Andrew LeGrand wrote in a June filing.

Josh Blackman, an adjunct scholar at the right-leaning Cato Institute, had a different view, saying the case before O’Connor involves X, not Tesla.

“If the judge owned stock in X, if it were a public company, it’s an easy case,” Blackman said. “It’s a novel case because it requires a chain of inferences to get from X to Tesla.”

But judicial ethics scholar Sample insists the appearance of bias alone is enough to warrant O’Connor to step aside from the case.

He said: “Let another competent judge handle these cases without serious questions surrounding them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Pilots Battling L.A Fires Face Heat, Turbulence, and High-Pressure Risks

Published

on

Pilots Battling L.A Fires Face Heat, Turbulence, and High-Pressure Risks

Piloting a firefighting aircraft is sweaty, tiring work, Mr. Mattiacci said. The conditions that increase fire risk — hot days, high wind, often mountainous areas — also make for turbulent flying conditions. The aircraft fly at low speeds, increasing the turbulence, he added.

“You get pulled up out of your seat and your head bangs against the roof,” he said. In the hot conditions, pilots must keep just hydrated enough not to have to use the bathroom, on flights that can last up to five hours, he said.

There’s also a risk of flying into the thick, blinding smoke that wildfires send up, he said. The aircraft flying low to the ground — sometimes as low as the height of treetops — meaning there’s a significant risk of flying into power lines, radio towers and buildings.

“When we lose all visual reference, it gets a bit scary,” he said.

The stronger the winds, the harder it is to get close to the fire, as winds push the smoke around and obstruct visibility.

Advertisement

The large air tankers in Australia drop retardant from an altitude of about 100 to 150 feet, he said, while smaller ones can fly even lower. The largest tankers — which can carry up to 9,400 gallons of fire retardant at a time, and have been used to fight the Southern California fires — drop from about 250 feet, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Mr. Mattiacci said that he often feels pressure as he looks down from the cockpit at homes and structures under threat, knowing his job is to help save them. And if the fire retardant doesn’t land where it’s needed, he added, during a fast-moving fire, “there might not be another chance.”

Continue Reading

News

German economy shrinks for second consecutive year

Published

on

German economy shrinks for second consecutive year

Stay informed with free updates

Germany’s economy shrank for a second straight year in 2024, underlining the severity of the downturn facing Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse.

The Federal Statistics Office said on Wednesday that Europe’s largest economy contracted by 0.2 per cent last year, after shrinking by 0.3 per cent in 2023. Economists had expected a decline of 0.2 per cent.

“Germany is experiencing the longest stagnation of its postwar history by far,” said Timo Wollmershäuser, economist at Ifo, a Munich-based economic think-tank, adding that the country was also underperforming significantly in an international comparison.

Advertisement

Confirmation that Germany is suffering one of the most protracted economic crises in decades comes six weeks ahead of a crucial snap election.

Campaigning has been dominated by the spectre of deindustrialisation, crumbling infrastructure and whether or not the country should abandon a debt brake that constrains public spending.

Friedrich Merz, head of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union who is likely to be Germany’s next chancellor, is campaigning on a reform agenda, promising to cut red tape and taxes and dial back welfare benefits for people who are not working.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

While private sector output contracted, government consumption rose sharply by 2.6 per cent compared with 2023.

Advertisement

Ruth Brand, president of the Federal Statistics Office, blamed “cyclical and structural pressures” for the poor performance, pointing to “increasing competition for the German export industry, high energy costs, an interest rate level that remains high and an uncertain economic outlook.”

In the three months to December, output fell by 0.1 per cent compared with the third quarter.

Robin Winkler, chief economist for Germany at Deutsche Bank, said the contraction in the fourth quarter came as a “surprise” and was “concerning”.

“If this is confirmed, the economy would have lost further momentum by the end of the year,” he said, suggesting this was probably driven by “political uncertainty in Berlin and Washington”.

The Bundesbank said last month that stagnation was set to continue this year, predicting growth of just 0.1 per cent and warning that a trade war with the US would trigger another year of economic contraction.

Advertisement

US president-elect Donald Trump has pledged to impose blanket tariffs of up to 20 per cent on all US imports.

Germany is struggling with a crisis in its automotive industry fuelled by Chinese competition and an expensive transition to electric cars, alongside high energy costs and tepid consumer demand.

Output in manufacturing contracted by 3 per cent, the statistics office said on Wednesday, while corporate investment fell by 2.8 per cent.

Germany has in effect seen no meaningful economic growth since the start of the pandemic, with industrial production hovering more than 10 per cent below its peak while unemployment has started to rise again after it fell to record lows.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Trump’s attorney general pick to face scrutiny on first day of Senate hearing

Published

on

Trump’s attorney general pick to face scrutiny on first day of Senate hearing

Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, is expected to face scrutiny on Wednesday during the first day of her confirmation hearing about her ability to resist the White House from exerting political pressure on the justice department.

The hearing, before the Senate judiciary committee, comes at a crunch time for the department, which has faced unrelenting criticism from Trump after its prosecutors charged him in two federal criminal cases and is about to see Trump’s personal lawyers in those cases take over key leadership positions.

Bondi, the first female Florida attorney general and onetime lobbyist for Qatar, was not on the legal team defending Trump in those federal criminal cases. But she has been a longtime presence in his orbit, including when she worked to defend Trump at his first impeachment trial.

She also supported Trump’s fabricated claims of election fraud in 2020, which helped her become Trump’s nominee for attorney general almost immediately after Matt Gaetz, the initial pick, withdrew as he found himself dogged by a series of sexual misconduct allegations.

That loyalty to Trump has raised hackles at the justice department, which prides itself on its independence from White House pressure and recalls with a deep fear how Trump in his first term ousted top officials when they stopped acquiescing to his demands.

Advertisement

Trump replaced his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, after he recused himself from the investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia and, later, soured on his last attorney general, Bill Barr, after he refused to endorse Trump’s false 2020 election claims.

Bondi is also expected to be questioned about her prosecutorial record as the Florida attorney general and possible conflicts of interest arising from her most recent work for the major corporate lobbying firm Ballard Partners.

During her tenure as Florida attorney general, in 2013, Bondi’s office received nearly two dozen complaints about Trump University and her aides have said she once considered joining a multi-state lawsuit brought on behalf of students who claimed they had been cheated.

As she was weighing the lawsuit, Bondi’s political action committee received a $25,000 contribution from a non-profit funded by Trump. While Trump and Bondi both deny a quid pro quo, Bondi never joined the lawsuit and Trump had to pay a $2,500 fine for violating tax laws to make the donation.

As the chair of Ballard’s corporate regulatory compliance practice, Bondi lobbied for major companies that have battled the justice department she will be tasked with leading, including in various antitrust and fraud lawsuits.

Advertisement

Bondi was a county prosecutor in Florida before successfully running for Florida attorney general in 2010 in part due to regular appearances on Fox News.

Continue Reading

Trending