Supreme Court Overturns Obstruction Conviction of Ex-Twitter Executive

On June 11, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated the obstruction-of-justice conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter media-partnerships manager, because the trial was held in the wrong venue. The Court held that a charge for falsifying a document must be tried where the false document was created—in Abouammo’s Seattle home—rather than in the Western District of California, where a San Francisco jury had convicted him.

UsNews and World Report

Abouammo, a Twitter media-partnerships manager from 2013-2015, is accused of providing confidential data on two Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official for a $42,000 watch and two $100,000 wire transfers. After leaving Twitter he relocated to Seattle, founded a consulting firm, and in 2022 met FBI agents at his home. He denied the allegations, saying the payments were consulting fees. Prosecutors contend he answered the agents’ request for documents with a fabricated invoice, creating the obstruction charge.

UsNews and World Report

The obstruction count required proof that Abouammo knowingly falsified a document to impede the FBI investigation. Although the conduct occurred in Seattle, the trial was held in the Northern District of California. Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion clarified that venue law mandates the trial be held where the falsified document originated, leading to the reversal of the obstruction conviction while leaving four other convictions—unregistered foreign-agent activity, wire fraud, and honest-services fraud—intact.

UsNews and World Report

The decision narrows the scope of venue for obstruction offenses, reinforcing that the location of the falsified document governs trial venue. The ruling leaves the other convictions untouched, meaning those charges remain enforceable.

UsNews and World Report

Justice Kagan emphasized that venue must be where the falsified document was created. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California declined comment, and Abouammo’s lawyer, Tobias Loss-Eaton, offered no statement.

UsNews and World Report

The opinion does not discuss the evidence underlying the remaining convictions, and neither the Justice Department nor Abouammo’s representatives explained why those counts were upheld, leaving a gap in public understanding of the Court’s broader reasoning.

UsNews and World Report

• “The trial for falsifying a document must take place where the defendant falsified the document,” — Justice Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court

UsNews and World Report

• “Here that was in Seattle - meaning in venue terms, the Western District of Washington.” — Justice Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court

UsNews and World Report

• “Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said that while the offense of falsifying a document to impede an investigation "is relatively easy to prove," the law restricts where the prosecution can take someone to trial on that charge.” — Justice Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court

UsNews and World Report

• “When the agents asked for documents to support his story, Abouammo created a fake invoice that he then emailed to one of them, prosecutors said, leading to the obstruction charge.” — Prosecutors

UsNews and World Report