In a recent development, a federal court has ordered Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, to comply with a subpoena issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This decision comes after Musk's claims that the SEC is "harassing" him and exceeding its authority to investigate.

US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, in her order issued on Saturday, reaffirmed that the SEC has broad authority to issue subpoenas. The information the SEC seeks from Musk is relevant to its investigation into possible violations of federal securities laws, specifically regarding Musk's 2022 purchases of Twitter stock and his statements and SEC filings relating to Twitter.

Although Musk had testified twice in July 2022, the SEC stated that it has obtained thousands of new documents since then and wants Musk to testify for a third time. The court's order granted the SEC's application to enforce the subpoena and instructed both parties to confer within one week to settle on a date and location for the testimony. If an agreement cannot be reached, the court will decide the dispute.

Judge Beeler, who serves as a magistrate judge at the US District Court for the Northern District of California, had already hinted during a mid-December hearing that she would rule against Musk if a date for deposition was not promptly agreed upon.

The SEC initiated its investigation in April 2022 after Musk acquired a 9 percent stake in Twitter and failed to disclose it within the required 10-day period, as mandated under US law. The investigation, which recently expanded beyond the late disclosure, encompasses all of Musk's 2022 purchases of Twitter stock and his related statements and SEC filings.

Musk, in response to the SEC lawsuit, claimed that the probe is politically motivated and "reeks of McCarthyism." However, Judge Beeler stated in her order that the SEC has met all prerequisites for the subpoena and can compel attendance of witnesses it deems relevant to the investigation. She emphasized that the burden is on Musk to prove that the subpoena was issued in bad faith or for improper purposes, but Musk failed to meet that burden.

Addressing Musk's claim that the subpoena violates the US Constitution's Appointments Clause, Beeler explained that the SEC's staff attorneys who sign subpoenas are non-officer employees and do not fall under the Appointments Clause's jurisdiction. Instead, they perform investigative functions under the SEC's formal orders. Beeler further rejected Musk's request for a stay of proceedings, stating that the pending SEC v. George Jarkesy case is unlikely to affect the outcome of this dispute.

This is not the first time that Musk and his companies have challenged the authority of regulatory agencies. SpaceX recently filed lawsuits against the US Attorney General and the National Labor Relations Board, making similar arguments about the constitutional limitations of administrative processes.

As the legal battle between Musk and the SEC continues, the court's order compels Musk to comply with the subpoena, ensuring that the investigation progresses. Both parties will now work to determine the specifics of Musk's testimony, shedding further light on the alleged violations of federal securities laws.

It remains to be seen how this development will impact Elon Musk's standing as one of the most influential figures in the technology and automotive industries.