In recent days, social media company X (formerly known as Twitter) has requested the Supreme Court of the United States to review the procedures by which special prosecutor Jack Smith obtained data related to former President Trump’s Twitter account. X argues that a district judge violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution when ordering the company to hand over Trump’s data.
Last year, Federal District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., issued a search warrant to Smith, compelling billionaire Elon Musk’s company, X, to provide a large amount of data and records related to Trump’s account.
X company wanted to inform Trump about the matter and postponed the execution of the search warrant. Smith then obtained a secrecy order from Howell, prohibiting X from notifying anyone, including Trump, about the existence or content of the search warrant.
Now, the company is urging the Supreme Court to prevent such situations from happening again, a request that could fundamentally change how law enforcement agencies clandestinely deploy search warrants to obtain sensitive information.
In a reconsideration request letter sent to the Supreme Court in May, X company stated that their objection to the secrecy order, based on the First Amendment, was rejected by the court, marking a first in U.S. history where a court ordered the disclosure of a former president’s communication without notifying the president or making a ruling on executive privilege.
The company is requesting the judges to consider whether it is appropriate for social media service providers to share user data with government investigators while prohibiting them from notifying users about it.
X company pointed out that Trump’s data may be protected by executive privilege, but Smith obtaining search and secrecy orders bypassing executive privilege is unprecedented.
The company disclosed that Twitter had already provided the relevant data to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). However, under the Presidential Records Act, notifying Trump is required to access data from NARA. Thus, the district court ordered Twitter to provide the data specifically to Smith.
Howell’s reasoning at the time was that the special prosecutor had presented evidence showing “reasonable belief” that President Trump, once informed of the search warrant, would “seriously harm the ongoing investigation,” giving him the opportunity to “destroy evidence, change behavior patterns, or notify associates.”
According to the Washington, D.C. Circuit Appeals Court in 2023, the judge appointed by Obama, Howell, also claimed that Trump would flee once he learned about the search warrant.
However, Smith’s team later admitted that some of the information they submitted to obtain the search warrant was incorrect.
In February 2023, based on delayed material submission, Howell ruled X company in contempt of court and imposed a $350,000 fine.
Representing X company, the lawyers from the prominent law firm WilmerHale stated that the court’s judgment in Washington, D.C. failed to protect the company’s rights to communicate with customers under the First Amendment.