The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 1, 2026, in *Morris v. Ziegler*, leaving intact a California appellate court ruling that allows a civil impersonation lawsuit to proceed against Garrett Ziegler, a former aide in the Trump administration [1]. The case stems from a 2022 phone call in which Kevin Morris, an attorney representing Hunter Biden, alleged that Ziegler impersonated another person to extract information related to Hunter Biden's laptop [1].
Morris filed the underlying suit in California state court, asserting claims that included impersonation and deceptive information-gathering [1]. A California appeals court ruled in August 2025 that at least some of Morris's claims, including the impersonation allegation, were viable and could move forward [1]. Ziegler petitioned the Supreme Court to review that ruling, arguing, among other grounds, that First Amendment protections applied to his conduct [1]. The Court's one-line denial of cert does not constitute a ruling on the merits but removes any federal appellate check on the California court's decision for now.
The case sits at the intersection of civil tort law and First Amendment doctrine governing information-gathering through alleged deception. Ziegler has been publicly associated with efforts to publicize and analyze materials from Hunter Biden's laptop, and his legal team framed the cert petition in part around press and investigative freedom [1]. Morris, whose own relationship with Hunter Biden has drawn separate public scrutiny, initiated the litigation as a civil plaintiff, not a government actor, meaning the First Amendment questions here arise in a private-party context rather than a direct government-speech regulation posture.
With the cert denial, the case returns to California state court for further proceedings on the surviving claims [1]. The precise procedural stage, whether discovery, summary judgment, or trial preparation, was not specified in available reporting. Ziegler's legal options at the state level remain open, including further motions practice and, ultimately, appeal through California's appellate structure. The case will continue to draw attention given its proximity to ongoing political disputes over the provenance and handling of Hunter Biden's laptop and the potential chilling-effect arguments that Ziegler's defense team is likely to press at the trial court level.