Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Court of Chancery Judge Kathaleen McCormick recuse herself from two Tesla shareholder lawsuits, citing concerns over potential bias. The claims center on the judge’s use of the LinkedIn platform.
CNBC reports that Elon Musk’s attorneys have requested that Judge Kathaleen McCormick step down from presiding over two ongoing Tesla shareholder lawsuits in Delaware, alleging that she demonstrated bias against the billionaire entrepreneur. The motion for recusal centers on claims that McCormick expressed support for a LinkedIn post critical of Musk by reacting to it with an emoji.
The legal filing stated that recusal is necessary and warranted due to the court’s recent public support of LinkedIn posts that create a perception of bias against Musk in these cases. Musk’s attorneys are requesting that the cases be reassigned to another randomly selected judicial officer of the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The LinkedIn post in question reportedly highlighted a verdict from a San Francisco federal court that could potentially cost Musk more than two billion dollars. In that separate case, a jury determined that Musk had defrauded Twitter investors during the period leading up to his acquisition of the social media platform.
In response to the allegations, Judge McCormick sent a letter to Musk’s legal representatives addressing the matter. She stated that she did not read the complete text of the LinkedIn post, did not support its content, and had no intention of clicking any emoji to express approval. McCormick explained that any such interaction would have been accidental and revealed that she had reported suspicious activity on her LinkedIn account to the platform.
However, Alex Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and an attorney representing Musk, expressed skepticism about McCormick’s explanation. Spiro told CNBC in an email that he had contacted LinkedIn regarding the incident and stated he does not believe there is any basis for the claim that it was a technical glitch. LinkedIn, which is owned by Microsoft, has not yet provided a response to requests for comment on the matter.
Judge McCormick became a focal point of Musk’s criticism following her decision to invalidate his 2018 Tesla CEO compensation package. The package, valued at approximately fifty-six billion dollars in stock options, was ordered to be rescinded when McCormick presided over the shareholder lawsuit Tornetta v. Musk. This ruling prompted Musk to relocate several of his business operations out of Delaware, reincorporating them in Texas and Nevada. He also publicly encouraged other business leaders to consider making similar moves.
The situation took a turn in 2025 when Delaware’s Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that McCormick’s remedy was excessively severe. The higher court determined that the original ruling did not provide Tesla with an opportunity to determine what fair compensation for Musk should be, ultimately deciding that the 2018 pay package must be restored.
Despite this reversal, Tesla and Musk continue to face two additional cases in Delaware courts under Judge McCormick’s jurisdiction. One lawsuit concerns the compensation of Tesla’s board of directors. The other is a consolidated shareholder suit brought by investors who allege that Musk violated his fiduciary duties to Tesla when he established xAI, a competing artificial intelligence company.
The xAI matter has evolved significantly in recent months. Earlier this year, Tesla made a two billion dollar investment in xAI. Subsequently, Musk’s aerospace and defense company SpaceX acquired xAI, with Tesla’s stock holdings being converted into SpaceX equity. These corporate transactions have raised questions among Tesla shareholders about potential conflicts of interest and whether such moves served the best interests of Tesla and its investors.
Read more at CNBC here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
Read the full article here