Two attorneys general are stepping in hoping to help Paramount in its takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen have filed a motion with the Supreme Court naming the dozen states suing Paramount as defendants. They are hoping the Supreme Court will step in and stop the lawsuit by a dozen states against Paramount over its takeover. Those dozen states have raised antitrust concerns.
Plaintiffs, the State of Iowa and State of Montana, respectfully move this Court for leave to file the attached Bill of Complaint to stop a politicized enforcement action that seeks to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger.
Twelve states have effectively vetoed a transaction that the other thirty-eight, and the United States, declined to challenge
No other forum can resolve that controversy. Congress made this Court’s jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states exclusive. … This Court is not merely the best forum for this controversy. It is the only one.
How the Supreme Court might act is up in the air. The right-wing court has sided heavily with corporations in decisions but this is an inter-state dispute and while they are the court for issues over boundary and water rights, as examples, it’s not clear if this falls under their jurisdiction.
Iowa and Montana claim they have no other venue to sue the states involved in the antitrust lawsuit. While Iowa and Montana are claiming the dozen states have veto power, the deal isn’t canceled, just delayed, until a court’s decision or Paramount’s agreed upon pause sunset of June 1, 2027.
The two attorneys general claim the lawsuit will have an impact on Iowa and Montana’s economies, “especially the tens of thousands of employees of Paramount and Warner Bros., as well as hundreds of millions who watch their movies, shows, and news through a variety of sources. Iowans and Montanans are being deprived of the benefits of the deal that DOJ and their own state attorneys general approved.”
The antitrust lawsuit does not prevent movies or television shows from being produced, worked on, or released, so the harm is dubious at best. In fact, a report shows the harm the merger would cause if it were to go through with the loss of jobs and more.
The two states go further in their filing:
This case is about the legal limits on politicized antitrust enforcement by a small handful of states seeking to enjoin a $110 billion merger that the United States, most American states, and competition regulators worldwide have cleared. Plaintiff States have the same interest that Defendant States have in well-functioning markets, but believe the merger will help their economies. Because they have the same interest, they should be able to litigate the issue, but can only do so here.
The approval process in the United States is dubious at best, as reports have come out that staff was ready to recommend the merger be challenged, not approved, but were ignored by decision makers higher up in the government. Paramount CEO David Ellison is a friend, and many consider an ally, of President Donald Trump.
The states have requested setting defendant states’ deadline to respond for Sept. 15, 2026, and distributing the case for an Oct. 9 conference.
Paramount is attempting to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery for about $110.8 billion. They have agreed to delay the closing of the deal until as late as June 2027 or whenever the antitrust trial might end as part of the lawsuit after being sued by a dozen states which began in July 2026. That trial is set for March 2, 2027.
You can read the filing from Iowa and Montana below:
Loading Viewer…
Discover more from Graphic Policy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Source: Graphic Policy
