img

Supreme Court declines to take up X case challenging Biden DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's warrant for Trump's user data

“If the Court does not grant this petition, it could be decades (if ever) before it gets another clean vehicle to resolve the important and recurring questions presented."

ADVERTISEMENT

“If the Court does not grant this petition, it could be decades (if ever) before it gets another clean vehicle to resolve the important and recurring questions presented."

ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court Monday said it won’t hear a court challenge from social media platform X to judicial rulings that ordered it to provide Donald Trump’s account data to Biden-Harris appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith in the election interference case. Early last year, Smith secretly used a search warrant to gain access to the account that Trump used extensively during his tenure as president, The Hill reported.

X was unable to tell Trump about the search warrant and only found out about it last summer when Trump was charged by Smith. Trump pleaded not guilty to four felonies. X challenged the search warrant, arguing Trump’s files were subject to executive privilege and being told to be silent about the data seizure amounted to a violation of the First Amendment protection of free speech. X was fined $350,000 for being judged as too tardy in providing Trump’s records.



After lower courts rejected its appeal, X brought the case to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it would provide the justices with the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of a social media platform being forced to deliver a private account. “If the Court does not grant this petition, it could be decades (if ever) before it gets another clean vehicle to resolve the important and recurring questions presented,” X wrote in its petition.

Seth Waxman, US solicitor general under former President Bill Clinton represented X while Smith’s team went with Michael Dreeben, who argued that the Supreme Court should ignore the appeal because Smith already had the file and that executive privilege did not pertain to the X account. “If review of the underlying legal issues were ever warranted, the Court should await a live case in which the issues are concretely presented,” prosecutors said.

The Supreme Court has sided with Trump in the same prosecution, deciding in July that as president, Trump enjoyed substantial immunity from criminal charges for official acts committed while in that office. Smith subsequently prepared a 165-page memo arguing the same case against Trump and charged him with a superseding indictment citing private acts.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment

Comments

Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments

Join and support independent free thinkers!

We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Support The Post Millennial

Remind me next month

To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
ADVERTISEMENT
© 2024 The Post Millennial, Privacy Policy | Do Not Sell My Personal Information