The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a challenge to a search warrant special counsel Jack Smith obtained for former President Donald Trump’s X account.
A judge approved Smith’s request in January 2023 for a warrant that provided access to information like Trump’s draft tweets, search history and direct messages, along with a nondisclosure order that prevented the company from informing Trump. Elon Musk’s X asked the Supreme Court in June to consider whether companies can be forced to produce communications before the user has an opportunity to assert privilege, but the justices rejected the request in an unsigned order.
READ: 72-Year-Old US Citizen Sentenced To Six Years In Russian Prison For Fighting On Behalf Of Ukraine
The company told the justices in its petition that the implications of the case are “far-reaching.” Under the lower court’s ruling, the government could “deny privilege-holders their opportunity to assert privilege by seeking communications from, and gagging, third parties,” X argued.
“In the tens of thousands of other cases where the government obtains nondisclosure orders, the government can invade other privileges — including attorney-client, journalist-source, and doctor patient — without notice,” the company’s petition states. “Meanwhile, the First Amendment rights of service providers like Twitter to notify users in time for them to assert privileges can be irreparably injured.”
The company was hit with a $350,000 sanction for producing information after the court’s deadline as it tried to delay compliance and fight the order on First Amendment grounds, court filings revealed last year.
READ: President Biden Issues Emergency Declaration As Hurricane Milton Approaches Florida
During a February 2023 hearing, District Court Judge Beryl Howell pressed X on it’s motives for fighting the nondisclosure order, questioning whether it was “because the CEO wants to cozy up with the former President.”
Smith urged the justices in July not to take the case, writing that “the underlying dispute is moot and no executive privilege issue actually existed in this case.”
“If review of the underlying legal issues were ever warranted, the Court should await a live case in which the issues are concretely presented,” he wrote.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Android Users: Download our free app to stay up-to-date on the latest news.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.