SCOTUS Rejects X's Appeal in Trump Data Case
The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from Elon Musk-owned X Corp. regarding special counsel Jack Smith's acquisition of former Pres. Donald Trump's Twitter records as part of the investigation into Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential elect...
Facts
- The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from Elon Musk-owned X Corp. regarding special counsel Jack Smith's acquisition of former Pres. Donald Trump's Twitter records as part of the investigation into Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.[1][2]
- Smith obtained a court-authorized warrant in January 2023 for information associated with Trump's @realDonaldTrump account as part of the election interference probe.[1]
- X, formerly Twitter, was initially prohibited by a judge from disclosing the warrant to Trump for 180 days. The company was then fined $350K after it failed to hand over the records on time. X eventually turned over 32 direct messages along with other data sets.[1]
- X argued that the nondisclosure order violated its First Amendment rights and deprived Trump of the opportunity to assert executive privilege over the material. The company also argued other users could be denied the right to assert privilege.[3][1]
- SCOTUS issued its decision on Tuesday without any explanation or noted dissents from the justices.[4]
- Smith's case against Trump is ongoing, as an updated indictment has been filed in response to SCOTUS ruling that Trump is immune from crimes committed in an official capacity as president. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.[4][1]
Sources: [1]CBS, [2]NBC, [3]USA Today and [4]Forbes.
Narratives
- Anti-Trump narrative, as provided by CNN. The government's actions were necessary to prevent the potential destruction of evidence and protect the integrity of the investigation. The courts were right to prioritize national security concerns over X's First Amendment claims. This decision sets a precedent for future cases involving high-profile investigations related to national security.
- Pro-Trump narrative, as provided by Daily Caller. SCOTUS' decision not to hear this case sets a dangerous precedent for privacy and privilege. The government can now potentially invade attorney-client, journalist-source, and doctor-patient privileges without notice. It's an unprecedented end-run around executive privilege that could have far-reaching consequences for all users of social media platforms.
