Supreme Court turns away Musk's X appeal over Trump criminal investigation

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal brought by X, Elon Musk's social media company, declining to decide whether prosecutors should have been able to obtain data from former President Donald Trump's Twitter account without him being notified.

The case arose as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump over alleged election interference in 2020, which the Supreme Court stymied earlier this year by ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken in office. The court left in place a ruling in favor of prosecutors.

Smith has already obtained the data at issue in the appeal brought by X, as Twitter is now known following Musk’s takeover of the social media company.

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAbdul El-Sayed tries to woo MAHA voters as Democrats seek inroads with RFK’s supporters

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP super PAC increases its spending for Sen. Jon Husted in tough Ohio race

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKratom-like substances are popping up in a typically benign supplement

FOR SUBSCRIBERSRecords reveal tumultuous marriage between slain New York Times executive and wife

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFrom clean energy warrior to ‘wall of shame,’ James Talarico reverses on a fossil fuel money pledge

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCongressional staff planned official trip with luxury stops in Italy and France weeks before election

FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane

FOR SUBSCRIBERSOpenAI CEO Sam Altman to skip congressional hearing on rogue AI agents

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKey DOJ lawyers departed Trump ‘grand conspiracy’ probe amid pressure to produce, source says

FOR SUBSCRIBERSTrump’s new AI chatbot often links to a site launched under Clinton 26 years ago

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAt MAHA summit, industry CEOs the movement once vilified take the stage

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThis Paralympian has two goals: Win medals and give away $500,000 to her teammates

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCornell rape allegation spotlights stringent New York state laws that have long drawn criticism

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts

FOR SUBSCRIBERSDecades-old march dispute reignites in Northern Ireland, threatening political crisis

But X’s lawyers said the Supreme Court should intervene so that prosecutors cannot take similar actions in the future without the person involved being made aware that their data is being handed over to the government. Trump himself is not involved in the case.

Among other things, Trump was not able to make any arguments about how the material in question might be protected because of his role as president, the lawyers said in court papers. They say that the nondisclosure order violated X’s free speech rights.

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAbdul El-Sayed tries to woo MAHA voters as Democrats seek inroads with RFK’s supporters

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP super PAC increases its spending for Sen. Jon Husted in tough Ohio race

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKratom-like substances are popping up in a typically benign supplement

FOR SUBSCRIBERSRecords reveal tumultuous marriage between slain New York Times executive and wife

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFrom clean energy warrior to ‘wall of shame,’ James Talarico reverses on a fossil fuel money pledge

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCongressional staff planned official trip with luxury stops in Italy and France weeks before election

FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane

FOR SUBSCRIBERSOpenAI CEO Sam Altman to skip congressional hearing on rogue AI agents

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKey DOJ lawyers departed Trump ‘grand conspiracy’ probe amid pressure to produce, source says

FOR SUBSCRIBERSTrump’s new AI chatbot often links to a site launched under Clinton 26 years ago

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAt MAHA summit, industry CEOs the movement once vilified take the stage

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThis Paralympian has two goals: Win medals and give away $500,000 to her teammates

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCornell rape allegation spotlights stringent New York state laws that have long drawn criticism

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts

FOR SUBSCRIBERSDecades-old march dispute reignites in Northern Ireland, threatening political crisis

The case dates to January of last year, when the government sought a warrant under a law called the Stored Communications Act as part of Smith’s investigation. A federal judge approved the warrant, as well as a nondisclosure order that prevents X from telling Trump or anyone else about it. Smith’s team had argued that there was a potential for evidence to be destroyed or tampered with if the warrant was made public.

X initially resisted and was subsequently hit with civil penalties worth $350,000 before agreeing to comply. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the district court’s decision. During the litigation, Smith agreed that Trump could be notified about the warrant.