X's Win in Federal Court Is a Victory for Free Speech and Open Disclosure
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has placed minor restraints on the government’s ability to impose gag orders on secret subpoenas issued to tech companies.

X Corp., formerly Twitter, has finally scored a win in its decade-long free speech fight against the federal government.
In 2023, a magistrate judge issued a year-long nondisclosure order prohibiting X from "disclosing subpoenas, warrants, or court orders for customer records" it received from the Justice Department (DOJ). In 2024, X received a subpoena from the DOJ demanding the personal information of former FBI agents Kyle Seraphin and Garrett O'Doyle, who testified before Congress about the FBI's politically motivated targeting of certain groups, according to the company's Global Government Affairs team. X sued the agency, arguing that the order violated Section 2705(b) of the Stored Communications Act (SCA). In 2024, a district court upheld that order. Last week, in an opinion filed by Judge Bradley Garcia, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that earlier ruling, siding with X and finding that the nondisclosure order sought by the Justice Department violated the SCA.
The SCA prohibits service providers from sharing consumer records and electronic communications "with any person or entity, but contains exceptions, such as when the government compels the information," explains the Congressional Research Service. Sections 2703 and 2705(b) of the SCA are key to the case. Section 2703 outlines the government's burden of proof for compelling record sharing, while Section 2705(b) dictates the process for non-disclosure orders, which can delay customer notification.
To satisfy Section 2705 (b) of the SCA and issue a nondisclosure order, a court must find "reason to believe" that disclosing a subpoena or warrant "will" have an adverse effect, including physical danger, flight risks, evidence tampering or destruction, witness intimidation or "actions seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial."
In considering X's case against the Justice Department, the appeals court focused on how wide-ranging the vacated nondisclosure order was and that it could apply to subpoenas that didn't yet exist. The government's undoing was its overreach, particularly its request for a year-long, all-encompassing subpoena under Section 2705(b). Garcia notes that the government "did not have any particular subpoena or subpoenas in hand" when applying for the nondisclosure order, instead seeking to attach it to any future subpoenas issued in its year-long investigation. In his opinion, Garcia describes the magistrate judge's reasoning as insufficient, citing failures to address the "reason to believe" standard for future subpoenas, the variety of potential targets, and the outsourcing of judicial evaluation to the government.
Garcia states that such an order would only be valid if the magistrate judge explained her "reason to believe" that disclosing any covered subpoena issued within the year "will result" in harm. He also notes that the reasoning for this order would differ from that attached to an existing subpoena, as it would place discretion for assessing risk of harm with the government, not the courts.
While the court sided with X, stating the law prohibits prospective gag orders on unissued subpoenas, it also left room for future orders on a case-by-case basis. The court also clarified that single orders can cover multiple subpoenas, provided that a "reason to believe" determination is made for each. X's First Amendment claims were not addressed due to "judicial restraint."
Although the ruling is narrow in scope, the Court of Appeals' admonition of the government's attempt to expand its powers is a win for free speech advocates, especially given the Supreme Court's decision not to hear cases regarding federal nondisclosure orders to X twice in 2024 and the fact that X stated it periodically receives subpoenas of this nature from the DOJ.
Efforts by Congress to curb the use of nondisclosure orders and expand what service providers like X can disclose to the public have failed, with bills often dying before the Senate Judiciary Committee considers them.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
X Corp., formerly Twitter,
This is no longer necessary.
Was there a Tweet about that?
It was an X clamation
Reason disclosed that some members here were being investigated during ChipperGate.
How fucking long are people going to keep saying 'X, formerly Twitter'?
We know Twitter is X now. Everyone knows. And if they don't know, fuck em, let them catch up on their own.
Just call it Twitter like everyone else does.
The journalist profession are still mourning Musk taking over their playground.
Sorry, this post is a lot of legal quibbling over ritual, not justice. The government wrote a law giving itself authority to do things that private parties are forbidden to do?
No thanks.
The Constitution was a pretty good first draft and is probably still the best constitution in the world, but I haven't read any others so I can only go by results.
But any government which defines its own limits is going to expand, expand, expand. There is something utterly perverse about government legislators writing laws expanding government authority, government judges approving said expansions, lawyerly quibbles about the exact nature of said expansions ... and nothing substantial about how evil any of this is.
The Constitution supposedly enumerates specific and limited powers of the government, and a slow and deliberate amendment process. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court amends the damn thing every chance it gets, legislators applaud, and government grows.
The 17A was the death of the republic.
The Constitution was a pretty good first draft and is probably still the best constitution in the world
But it needed the Communications Decency Act to really round it out though, amirite?
Well, just that one section, I am sure. That was the icing on the cake, it really tied everything together.
Every single government official from the Twitter files should be in jail.