The Supreme Court has refused to review the contention brought forth by X Corp against the method used by Special Counsel Jack Smith to secure a covert search warrant for Donald Trump’s account information.
This verdict, as of now, upholds the utilization of a mechanism by the Justice Department, a nondisclosure order (NDO), which forbids third-party entities such as telecommunication firms and social media platforms from alerting subscribers when their information is sought through a search warrant.
Legal professionals argue that court-approved NDOs are crucial in preventing criminal investigation subjects from manipulating evidence or swaying witnesses. These orders, by law, must be time-bound and specifically targeted. However, X Corp, represented by top-tier attorneys from WilmerHale, alleged that NDOs are approved too loosely and with minimal restrictions.
The dispute regarding the specific NDO applied in Trump’s case is largely moot. Smith successfully acquired all of the data he needed in early 2023, with recent documents suggesting that the data regarding Trump’s social media activity on and before January 6, 2021, will play a pivotal role as Smith continues his pursuit of charges against the former president for alleged conspiracy to undermine the 2020 election.
Smith obtained Trump’s data only after a federal district judge penalized the company, formerly known as Twitter, for failing to meet court-mandated deadlines to comply with prosecutors’ requests.
The then lead judge of the federal district court in Washington, Beryl Howell, fined the company $350,000, deducing that it had defied her order for three days. It was speculated that the company’s new owner, Elon Musk, may have influenced the resistance, a claim vehemently denied by the attorneys.
X Corp attempted to escalate the case to the Supreme Court, arguing for a broader consideration of NDOs, as they are likely to reappear in future disputes with the government. Currently, the company is engaged in another such conflict in a confidential federal investigation that bears similarities to the Trump account case. However, Chief Judge James Boasberg indicated that the recent case is unrelated to the 2020 election.
As per the norm, the justices offered no justification for their refusal to take up the case. No justice documented any opposition to the decision, as revealed in a 50-page document of orders released by the court on Monday.
The importance of the data that Smith acquired was highlighted in last week’s prominent filing, summarizing the findings of his two-year investigation. He detailed Trump’s Twitter behavior leading up to the January 6 attack, verifying Trump as the primary author and usually, the direct sender of his tweets.
X Corp is not alone in its struggle against NDOs, arguing that they infringe on the First Amendment. Google similarly unsuccessfully fought against them in New York.
Last year, a bill restricting federal prosecutors’ use of NDOs was unanimously passed in the House. The bill was introduced in the Senate earlier this year but is still awaiting a vote.
Additionally, on Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed another pending case related to the January 6 attack, refusing to review a riot defendant’s objection to his conviction on misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges. Russell Alford disputed the rulings of two lower courts, including U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s criminal case, that even passive participants of the January 6 mob can be held accountable for their actions.
The justices’ decision to uphold Alford’s convictions is a temporary triumph for the Justice Department, which has recently faced challenges and defeats on several key charges against riot defendants.
