On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Elon Musk’s appeal of a 2018 SEC settlement over his infamous “funding secured” tweet. Ars Technica reports that the conservative-majority court paused in weighing whether U.S. presidents should be above the law over Musk’s attempt to terminate the agreement that required him to pay fines, resign from the Tesla board and the Pre-review of his tweets required rejection by a lawyer.
The justices rejected Musk’s petition without comment. Their unwillingness to comply with the billionaire’s appeal leaves unaffected an appeals court ruling from a year ago that rejected the Tesla founder’s victim claims.
The saga began in 2018 when Musk tweeted“I’m thinking about taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” He also posted: “Investor support is confirmed.” The only reason this is not certain is because it depends on the shareholder vote.” Tesla shares rose more than six percent .
There was just one small problem: the financing wasn’t secured and the SEC takes false statements affecting investors very seriously. The SEC said: “Musk had not even discussed, let alone confirmed, the key terms of the contract, including price, with a potential funding source, and he “knew that he had failed to satisfy numerous additional contingencies.” The government agency alleged that the post had caused “significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla shares.”
The SEC settlement hit his wallet hard, requiring Musk and Tesla to pay $20 million each in penalties. He also had to resign from his position as CEO of the automaker and have all investor-related tweets reviewed by a Tesla lawyer before publication. Of course, Musk later bought Twitter and changed his name to X. But at least it’s going great!
His appeal said the settlement forced him to “waive his right to speak on matters that go far beyond the violations charged.” Musk, who currently has an estimated net worth of $185 billion, claimed he was a victim of “economic coercion” when he agreed to the settlement, which he described as a tactic to “silence” him and his company and to bully.”
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose ruling will now be the final word on the matter, rejected Musk’s arguments. “Parties that issue consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights,” they said. The appeals court found “no evidence to support Musk’s claim that the SEC used the consent decree to conduct bad faith and harassing investigations of his protected speech.”