The ruling revealed that Special Counsel
But Twitter objected to the nondisclosure order, claiming it violated the company’s First Amendment free speech protections, and appealed.
In the 3-0 opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected Twitter’s objections to the nondisclosure order and upheld the fine against the company. The social media company ultimately complied with the warrant, the opinion showed.
Judge
Biden ‘Going CRAZY’
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump — the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination for 2024 — criticized how the special counsel’s office had handled the warrant issue.
“Just found out that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ secretly attacked my Twitter account, making it a point not to let me know about this major ‘hit’ on my civil rights,” he wrote. “My Political Opponent is going CRAZY trying to infringe on my Campaign for President.”
Trump was indicted on Aug. 1 on felony charges that he conspired to obstruct the election. He has pleaded not guilty.
Read More:
A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment on the opinion. A representative of X didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
X’s lawyer,
‘Evidence of Criminal Offenses’
The fight between the special counsel and Twitter unfolded largely in secret court proceedings until Wednesday, when the DC Circuit ordered a redacted version of its July 18 opinion unsealed.
Smith’s office had obtained a search warrant for data and other records related to Trump’s @realDonaldTrump account in mid-January, according to the opinion. The district judge who signed off on it — US District Judge
The DC Circuit noted that the Justice Department had trouble serving Twitter with a copy of the warrant and the nondisclosure order because the company’s website for legal requests was “inoperative.” Prosecutors were able to notify a lawyer for Twitter within a few days.
The DC Circuit panel also featured Judge
$350,000 Fine
In objecting to the nondisclosure order, Twitter also argued that it would bar Trump from having a chance to raise executive privilege challenges. The company maintained that it shouldn’t have to comply with the warrant until that issue was fully litigated.
Howell ruled against the company and ordered it to comply by Feb. 7; the original deadline had been Jan. 27. Twitter missed that new deadline and didn’t produce all of the records until the evening of Feb. 9, triggering the monetary sanctions.
The judge adopted the government’s proposal for how to calculate the sanctions — $50,000 per day of noncompliance, doubling that rate every additional day — and pointed out that the company had been sold to
The judge issued another opinion in March, finding the nondisclosure order was “narrowly tailored” to “protect the compelling interest of safeguarding the integrity and secrecy of an ongoing criminal investigation.”
On June 20, the government alerted the district judge that it would allow Twitter to notify Trump about the warrant. Twitter paid the fine, but it was held in an escrow account while it pressed its appeal, according to the opinion.
The appeals court also held that Howell wasn’t required to wait to rule on the contempt issue — and delay the government’s access to evidence in a criminal investigation — until it resolved the merits of Twitter’s challenge to the nondisclosure order.
The case is 23-5044, US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (Washington).
(Adds details and context throughout, starting in fourth paragraph.)
--With assistance from
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Peter Jeffrey
© 2023 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.