-
Getty Image
Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Trump’s Social Media Records Dispute
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not involve itself in the ongoing dispute regarding special counsel Jack Smith’s attempts to secure records from former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account, now known as X. This decision leaves a lower court ruling in place that maintains a nondisclosure order, which mandates that Smith’s request for Trump’s social media records remains confidential for six months.
The court’s refusal to hear X’s appeal continues to sidestep a significant legal issue tied to Smith’s prosecution of Trump, who is accused of attempting to undermine the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 election.
In a ruling from July, the court’s conservative majority determined that Trump is entitled to some immunity from criminal charges related to actions taken during his presidency. Current proceedings are ongoing in a federal district court in Washington, where the court is reviewing whether Smith’s revised allegations against Trump align with the Supreme Court’s earlier opinion.
X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, contended before the Supreme Court that social media companies should not be compelled to provide the government with a user’s communications while being prohibited from informing the user. The company argued that the nondisclosure order prevented Trump from asserting executive privilege over the materials before they were handed over to the special counsel. X also expressed concern for other users, such as journalists and lawyers, who might wish to invoke their own privileges but would be denied the chance.
The conflict between Smith and X dates back to January 2023, when the federal government secured a court-approved warrant for information related to Trump’s account, @realDonaldTrump, as part of its investigation into alleged election interference.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the company, then known as Twitter, to comply with the data request and prohibited the disclosure of the warrant for 180 days, believing that notifying Trump would jeopardize the investigation.
Twitter initially withheld the records while contesting the nondisclosure order, claiming it violated its First Amendment rights. However, Howell ultimately upheld the order and imposed a $350,000 civil contempt fine on the company for failing to deliver the records on time.
Eventually, Twitter provided Smith with 32 direct messages linked to Trump’s account, which prosecutors described as a “miniscule proportion” of the information they sought. The specifics of these messages remain unclear, including whether they were drafts or messages sent or received by Trump. The social media company stated it also submitted various other data sets to Smith.
Following the unsealing of the D.C. Circuit’s July decision, Musk’s company appealed the nondisclosure order, which the court found consistent with the First Amendment. During the appeal, the district court permitted Twitter to notify Trump of the warrant.
The legal battle between Twitter and Smith unfolded largely behind closed doors until the D.C. Circuit’s ruling was made public in August 2023. At the time, Trump had not yet been indicted, although he was later charged in early August 2023 with four counts related to what the special counsel describes as an attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.
While the prosecution was paused for several months due to Trump’s appeal over presidential immunity, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Trump could not be charged for certain official actions while in office, but unofficial acts do not enjoy such immunity.
Following this ruling, a federal grand jury issued a new indictment against Trump, detailing a more narrowly focused set of allegations. The federal district court is currently conducting proceedings to determine whether Trump’s communications with former Vice President Mike Pence during the alleged crimes fall outside the scope of presidential immunity as defined by the Supreme Court.