“Denied Again”: Elon Musk’s X Loses Appeal Over Seized Trump Twitter Records
PHOTOS: AFP, REUTERS
In a legal blow to Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), an appeal challenging special counsel Jack Smith’s request for Donald Trump’s Twitter records—without notifying the former president—was denied on Monday. The case is linked to Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election.
NBC News reported that Musk’s platform sought intervention from the Supreme Court, arguing that prosecutors should not be able to seize private data without informing the person involved. “X’s lawyers said the Supreme Court should intervene so that prosecutors cannot take similar actions in the future without the person involved being made aware that their data is being handed over to the government,” NBC stated.
The legal battle began in January 2023 when Smith’s team obtained a warrant to access Trump’s Twitter records secretly. The special counsel justified the covert approach, claiming that prior notification could lead to the destruction of evidence. Musk’s platform initially resisted the warrant but eventually complied after being fined $350,000 for non-compliance.
Despite the fact that Smith’s team had already obtained the data, Musk’s legal team pressed on with the appeal in an attempt to prevent such actions from happening again. They argued that Trump should have had the opportunity to contest the release of his records, particularly considering his status as a former president.
X’s lawyers contended that the lack of notice deprived Trump of his right to argue for the protection of his communications, citing the unique privilege associated with a president’s role. The company aimed to establish a precedent that would ensure future transparency in similar cases involving sensitive data and high-profile individuals.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene means that Smith’s team’s method of securing Trump’s records without notice remains legally intact, potentially shaping the legal framework for how social media records are handled in investigations involving national security and high-profile political figures.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the tension between privacy rights and investigative powers in the digital age. As Musk’s platform, X, continues to evolve under his leadership, this legal episode underscores the broader battle between tech companies and government authorities over data access and privacy. The case also highlights the ongoing legal challenges Trump faces related to the 2020 election and the role of special counsel Jack Smith in pursuing these investigations.
With Musk’s platform having complied but still pushing for legal reforms, the controversy surrounding how social media data is accessed in criminal probes remains an important issue for both legal experts and digital rights advocates.
