Musk escalates his dispute with the SEC over free speech as the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes and calls into pre-screening Tesla posts.
As Elon Musk attempts to void a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a keen interest in a legal dispute that may redefine the limits of free speech for public figures.
In the interim, the Biden administration’s response to Musk’s appeal has been requested by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has introduced an additional level of intricacy to the high-stakes dispute between the entrepreneur and the regulatory agency.
This advancement signifies a critical juncture in Elon Musk’s continuous dispute regarding the moderation of his social media contributions pertaining to Tesla Inc.
The Supreme Court Requests Regulatory Response to SEC vs. Elon Musk dispute
The Biden administration has been requested by the U.S. Supreme Court to provide its opinion on Elon Musk’s appeal, which suggests that an SEC agreement concerning the pre-screening of his Tesla-related social media postings should be invalidated. Musk specifically argues that this agreement violates his constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
In the interim, according to Bloomberg, the justices have instructed Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to provide a response by January 22. While this action does not inherently reflect the collective position of the court, it may indicate the sentiments of a single justice.
In earlier this month, Elon Musk initiated a significant development by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a settlement that mandated the presence of a “Twitter sitter” to monitor his Tesla-related content.
Elon Musk’s legal team lodged a complaint on December 7 alleging that this provision infringes upon his freedom of expression. They contend that he was coerced into accepting “unconstitutional conditions” imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States.
The petition aimed to void the agreement, emphasizing Musk’s dissent regarding overseeing his social media posts about the electric vehicle (E.V.) manufacturer.
From “Funding Secured” Tweet to Challenging The Constitution
Musk’s dispute with the SEC stems from his 2018 tweet, in which he asserted that “funding secured” to take Tesla private, an action that had an enormous effect on the company’s stock price. The SEC sued in retaliation, alleging the dissemination of false information.
In the interim, a settlement was reached between Elon Musk and Tesla, wherein Musk agreed to contribute $20 million each and have an internal attorney pre-screen Musk’s Tesla-related posts. Elon Musk’s recent appeal to the Supreme Court characterizes this arrangement as a “quintessential prior restraint,” thereby contesting its legality.
It is worth noting that Elon Musk has expressed disapproval of the regulatory burden that plagues U.S. financial markets, emphasizing the difficulties that corporations such as Tesla encounter, as reported by Bloomberg.
In a conversation with Cathie Wood on X Spaces, Musk addressed the impact of shareholder pressure on efficiency and the influence of a few stock managers due to passive investing.
Furthermore, he discussed the advantages of SpaceX’s private status, which permits greater risk-taking, and acknowledged the consistent capital flow that Tesla maintains by remaining public.
