The Supreme Court declined to hear Elon Musk’s challenge to an agreement he made with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding his social media activity. This agreement required a lawyer to review certain posts before Musk could publish them.
Elon Musk had sought to contest a decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the SEC.
At issue was a provision colloquially known as the “Twitter sitter” rule, which Musk argued unlawfully restricted his ability to discuss Tesla-related matters online. Musk, known for his spontaneous use of Twitter, renamed the platform X after acquiring it in 2022.
The SEC took action against Musk following tweets he made in 2018 claiming he had secured funding to take Tesla private, a statement that caused market upheaval. The SEC alleged these tweets were misleading and violated securities laws.
To resolve the SEC’s civil action, Elon Musk agreed to certain conditions, including the requirement for pre-approval of some social media posts.
In a separate case, a jury ruled last year that Musk was not responsible for misleading investors.
Elon Musk now contends that the social media restrictions are unconstitutional and that he was essentially coerced into accepting them. His legal team argues that the SEC has been targeting him unfairly.
According to Musk’s lawyers, the provision goes beyond securities laws, restricting Musk’s speech even when it is truthful and unrelated to the SEC’s initial concerns.
The SEC countered that Musk waived his right to challenge these conditions when he agreed to the settlement.
Lower courts have sided against Musk in his attempt to challenge the agreement.
