(ReclaimingAmerica.net) – In a striking blow to freedom of speech advocates seeking transparency from the government, the Supreme Court has chosen not to entertain an appeal from social media platform X challenging a governmental restriction.
Formerly known as Twitter, X is currently helmed by Elon Musk, who also leads Tesla and SpaceX. The appeal contested a ban preventing X from revealing the frequency of surveillance requests on its users by federal authorities.
The appeal revolved around the argument that prohibiting the disclosure of precise figures on national security-related surveillance requests violated constitutional rights and should only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene leaves the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals verdict intact. This ruling affirmed that restrictions on freedom of speech concerning national security surveillance requests are exempt from certain procedural norms that typically require judicial scrutiny.
X‘s legal battle aimed to secure the right to disclose the exact number of national security orders it received over six months requesting information about its users. This case has been ongoing for over a decade, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal means that the lower court’s decision will stand. Notably, the Supreme Court neither explained its refusal nor disclosed the opinions or the number of justices in favor of considering the case.
In a related context, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., revealed in August that the Department of Justice’s special counsel, Jack Smith, had acquired a search warrant for former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account at the onset of 2023.
The move was part of Smith’s broader criminal investigation into Trump. X initially resisted handing over the requested materials and lodged a sealed court challenge against an order that prohibited informing Trump or any other party about the warrant.
X faced a $350,000 fine imposed by a federal District Court judge for contempt due to non-compliance with the deadline for submitting the required materials.
The D.C. appeals court ultimately dismissed X’s efforts to overturn both the contempt ruling and the nondisclosure order. X had argued that this order infringed on its constitutional free speech rights to communicate with its subscriber, Donald Trump.
