Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Jack Smith Order for Trump’s Twitter Records

X says the order to hand over the documents is an ‘end-run around executive privilege.’

Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Users are leaving X in the wake of President Trump’s 2024 election. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

The Supreme Court is rejecting an appeal from Elon Musk’s X Corporation challenging Special Counsel Jack Smith’s order to hand over records from President Trump’s account. 

The court did not provide a comment when it rejected the appeal on Monday. X did not respond to a request for comment. 

Last year, Mr. Smith obtained information on Trump’s direct messages, draft tweets that were deleted, and searches from his account as part of his investigation into the former president’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. 

In a January 2023 order, Mr. Smith’s office sought “all content, records, and other information relating to communications sent from or received by” the former president’s account between October 2020 and January 2021. 

However, X did not hand over the records, as it insisted at the time that some of the information could have been covered by executive privilege. The focus of the social media company’s concern was a gag order that prevented it from notifying Trump or giving him a chance to appeal the order to hand over the documents. 

A federal judge, Beryl Howell, ordered X to hand over the information requested by Mr. Smith and fined the company $350,000 for the delay in its compliance.

X called the order to hand over the records an “unprecedented end-run around executive privilege,” which it said could have an impact on other users on the platform by potentially setting a precedent for letting prosecutors access information that is protected by other privileges such as attorney-client privilege. 

The special counsel’s office defended the order, arguing, “The Fourth Amendment permits the government to obtain a warrant to search property belonging to an innocent third party as long as the warrant is supported by probable cause that ‘evidence of a crime will be found.’”

By the time it filed its appeal, X had already handed over the documents to Mr. Smith. It was asking the Supreme Court to prevent prosecutors from taking similar steps to obtain documents in future cases.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use