They're being forced to share data at the expense of their reputation and time, so possibly.
On the other hand one might argue it's just standard warrant compliance...
X Corp. is asking the justices to consider whether social media services can be forced to share data about their users with government investigators while being barred from informing those users about the requests.
In an unprecedented end-run around executive privilege, Special Counsel Jack Smith obtained a nondisclosure order preventing Twitter from notifying former
President Trump of a warrant for private communications that he sent and received during his presidency. Although Twitter had provided these communications to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the government informed Twitter and the district court that it “did not want to obtain data from NARA, as it would require notification [to the former President] pursuant to the Presidential Records Act.”
So the act of being precluded from informing the user seems to be critical here.
Twitter argued the order was a prior restraint on speech subject to the procedural safeguards of Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51
(1965), which requires that challenges to prior restraints
be resolved in time to preserve the status quo
That is, Twitter sought to notify former
President Trump in a manner that, like the PRA, protected potential constitutional privileges while accommodating any legitimate interest the government had in
nondisclosure.
Meanwhile, the First Amendment rights
of service providers like Twitter to notify users in time
for them to assert privileges can be irreparably injured.
Ok yeah so first amendment rights of Twitter seem to be a big part of the case...
X is basically saying that not only was Trump's 1st Amendment rights were violated, but also potentially his 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendment rights were also violated thru the DOJ's refusal to allow potential witnesses from informing Trump he was being investigated in a non-Grand Jury civil court status.
And after rereading those last 4 Amendments, it's clear to me Judge Merchan, Bragg, and Fani Willis violated those rights as well as the DOJ/Fed Bois by even opening these investigations and prosecuting them in the manner [they] sought.
Me thinks there's going to be a very big comeuppance coming in the near future once DJT begins the appeals process.
Does X have standing?
They're being forced to share data at the expense of their reputation and time, so possibly.
On the other hand one might argue it's just standard warrant compliance...
So the act of being precluded from informing the user seems to be critical here.
Ok yeah so first amendment rights of Twitter seem to be a big part of the case...
X is basically saying that not only was Trump's 1st Amendment rights were violated, but also potentially his 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendment rights were also violated thru the DOJ's refusal to allow potential witnesses from informing Trump he was being investigated in a non-Grand Jury civil court status.
And after rereading those last 4 Amendments, it's clear to me Judge Merchan, Bragg, and Fani Willis violated those rights as well as the DOJ/Fed Bois by even opening these investigations and prosecuting them in the manner [they] sought.
Me thinks there's going to be a very big comeuppance coming in the near future once DJT begins the appeals process.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1264/311993/20240530144316325_23-xxxx%20-%20X%20Corp.%20v.%20United%20States%20-%20cert.%20petition.pdf
We all know this isn't ultimately about Trump's content on Twitter, but rather Obama and others'.
Something to watch out for. I suspect the SC will give us a bit of nuance as to what white hats can extract and what the process should be.
Trump goes first so that the precedent is set and white hats know what to do & not so that their cases succeed.