The Supreme Court just issued a unanimous ruling, and the case behind it has everything: Twitter, Saudi dissidents, federal prosecutors, and a fake invoice.
The decision came down June 11, 2026, in Abouammo v. United States, No. 25-5146. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a 9-0 Court, reversing the Ninth Circuit and sending the case back.
Legal reporter Katie Buehler summed up the ruling this way:
BREAKING: A 9-0 Supreme Court *maintains* limits on the government’s discretion over where to bring prosecutions, tossing a former Twitter/X employee’s California conviction for emailing false documents to FBI agents from Washington. #SCOTUS https://t.co/AH3umsmyZr pic.twitter.com/gIgvj6PuR5
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) June 11, 2026
The defendant is Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee accused of giving confidential information about Saudi dissidents to a high-level Saudi official.
According to the Court, the Saudi official wired Abouammo $300,000. Later, after Abouammo had left Twitter and moved to Seattle, FBI agents interviewed him at his home.
The case was ugly. The legal question was narrower: where was the government allowed to try the false-record charge?
The Supreme Court laid out the case this way:
This case presents the question whether a defendant charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §1519—which makes it a crime to knowingly falsify a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation—must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred, or whether he may alternatively be tried in the district where the federal investigation was located.
While employed by Twitter at its San Francisco office, petitioner Ahmad Abouammo provided confidential information to a high-level Saudi official about Saudi dissidents posting on the company’s platform. In exchange, the official wired Abouammo $300,000.
Around the same time, Abouammo left Twitter and relocated to Seattle, where he started a social-media consulting business. Two San Francisco-based FBI agents, who were investigating unauthorized disclosures of Twitter account information, later flew to Seattle to interview Abouammo at his home.
During the interview, Abouammo denied giving the Saudi official confidential information, claiming that the payments were for consulting work. When the agents asked for supporting documentation, Abouammo went upstairs, created a fake invoice, and emailed it to one of the agents.
Back in San Francisco, the agents discovered from the emailed document’s date-and-time metadata what Abouammo had just done.
Held: A defendant charged with violating §1519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred; he cannot be tried in a different district where the investigation was located because no “conduct constituting the offense” happened there.
That is the heart of the ruling.
The government charged the false-record count in the Northern District of California. Abouammo argued it belonged in the Western District of Washington because the alleged falsification happened in Seattle.
The Supreme Court agreed with him on that venue question.
For readers who do not live inside legal filings, venue is not a technicality when the Constitution says it twice.
Article III says criminal trials are to be held in the state where the crimes were committed. The Sixth Amendment protects the right to a jury from the state and district where the crime was committed.
In plain English, prosecutors do not get to pick a preferred courtroom just because the case is politically sensitive, embarrassing, or tied to foreign influence.
That is the part that makes the unanimous ruling land.
The Court did not bless what Abouammo allegedly did. It did not declare him innocent.
It did something more basic: it reminded the government that even an unsympathetic defendant gets the protections the Constitution actually gives him.
And when all nine justices agree on that, federal prosecutors across the country have to pay attention.
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.