A federal judge has stopped Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood from pushing ahead with his investigation of Google.

In a short order (PDF) published yesterday, US District Judge Henry Wingate said that he's satisfied that Google has met its burden for getting a preliminary injunction. That means Google won't have to respond, for now, to a wide-ranging subpoena that Hood sent to the search giant last year. Wingate didn't lay out his reasoning in the order, but he said that a more detailed opinion is forthcoming.

Hood's investigation came under fire last year after press reports revealed that it was encouraged, and partly funded, by the Motion Picture Association of America. MPAA lawyers even wrote drafts of subpoenas intended to be used by the AGs.

Google noted that one of Hood's letters criticizing the company was mostly written by movie industry lawyers. It was published by The New York Times.

Shortly after those revelations, Google filed papers in federal court seeking to block Hood's investigation.

Questions of state and federal power

After Google filed suit, Hood said he was "calling for a time-out so that cooler heads may prevail."

The court docket doesn't show a whole lot of cooling off, though. Hood's attorneys fought with Google, insisting that they shouldn't be blocked from their investigation.

"This lawsuit is nothing more than a brazen strategic maneuver on Google's part to hinder the Attorney General's investigation into its possible violations of Mississippi law," wrote a Mississippi state lawyer in response (PDF) to the complaint.

Hood's efforts to stop copyright theft garnered headlines, but in court papers, Mississippi lawyers emphasize other violations. An affidavit (PDF) describes a state investigator making undercover buys of "prescription medication; spice; bath salt; color contact lenses; and diet pills."

For its part, Google denied (PDF) that it was asking for any kind of "general exemption from investigation or prosecution." Rather, it was challenging this specific investigation, which involved claims about copyright and prescription drugs that should be regulated by the federal government. It also claimed its constitutional speech rights were harmed by Hood's efforts to alter Google search results.

"The Attorney General’s filings make little effort to defend his censorship demands or his repeated threats to prosecute Google for its display of third-party content, and instead largely try to change the subject," Google lawyers wrote.

Attorneys general from 11 other states submitted a brief (PDF) in support of Hood. Mississippi is "not the only state with concerns about Google," they wrote. "Allowing Google’s claims to go forward at this juncture would set a dangerous precedent... it could jeopardize each and every Attorney General’s ability to investigate and enforce violations of his or her state’s consumer protection laws."

The amicus brief was written by the attorney general of Kentucky and was signed by AGs from Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Going forward, Wingate has this litigation on a tight schedule. Hood will have to file an official answer to Google's complaint, which will be followed by a 90-day discovery period. Then each side will have another month to make an argument about why Google should or shouldn't be investigated by state lawyers.