The Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 11, 2026, in favor of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee, regarding the venue for his trial. Abouammo was accused of selling company secrets to a Saudi official for $300,000. He provided confidential information about Saudi dissidents using the platform. After leaving Twitter and relocating to Seattle, he was interviewed by federal investigators and allegedly submitted a false invoice regarding the payments he received.
Federal prosecutors charged Abouammo in the Northern District of California, arguing that the case originated there. However, Abouammo contended that the charges should have been filed in Washington state, where the alleged crime occurred. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Abouammo, stating that indictments must be filed in the district where the crime took place. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the trial should have occurred in Seattle, not California, as the falsification of the document happened there.
The ruling is seen as a measure against prosecutors' ability to choose venues based on the origin of their investigations rather than the location of the alleged crime. Michael Fox, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, commented that the decision prevents prosecutors from manipulating venue choices and reinforces the role of local juries in the judicial process.
The case, Abouammo v. United States, was one of several opinions released by the Supreme Court as its term nears completion, with more decisions expected in the coming weeks.