Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
X Corp., fka Twitter, Inc. v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 20-16174 · judgment March 6, 2023
Before the decision, about 1.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a business petitioner.
Questions presented
The U.S. Government conducts surveillance of Americans and foreign nationals by issuing “national security process” to electronic communication service providers such as petitioner X Corp., which operates the online platform formerly known as Twitter. The Executive Branch deems information relating to this process classified, making disclosure of such information unlawful unless the disclosure falls within a narrow statutory safe harbor. This scheme precludes the release of much information that is of significant importance and interest to the public. In this case, the Ninth Circuit—expressly rejecting the contrary holding of the Second Circuit—held that restrictions on speech addressing a recipient’s receipt of national security process are not subject to the procedural requirements outlined in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), which (among other things) mandates prompt judicial review of government censorship. The Ninth Circuit also declined to subject the censorship scheme to the sort of exacting scrutiny accorded prior restraints on speech in other contexts. The questions presented are:
-
Whether the Government’s prohibition on disclosure of the receipt of national security process is unconstitutional in the absence of the procedural requirements for prior restraints on speech specified in Freedman.
-
Whether the Government’s prohibition on disclosure of the receipt of national security process should be subjected to the same extraordinarily exacting scrutiny generally applied to content-based prior restraints on speech.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Charles Rothfeld
Mayer Brown LLP
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Jan 08 2024Petition DENIED.
- Dec 20 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
- Dec 20 2023Reply of petitioner X Corp. filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 06 2023Brief of respondents Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. in opposition filed.
- Nov 17 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 6, 2023.
- Nov 15 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 1, 2023 to December 6, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 01 2023Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed.
- Nov 01 2023Brief amicus curiae of ASU College of Law First Amendment Clinic filed.
- Oct 16 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 1, 2023.
- Oct 13 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 1, 2023 to December 1, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 28 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 1, 2023)
- Jul 31 2023Application (23A84) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 28, 2023.
- Jul 26 2023Application (23A84) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 14, 2023 to September 28, 2023, submitted to Justice Kagan.