On Monday, the US Supreme Court rejected Elon Musk’s appeal of a 2018 SEC settlement regarding his infamous “secured funding” tweet. Ars Technica reports from which the conservative majority court took a break weighing whether US presidents should be above the law to pass on Musk’s attempt to renege on a settlement that required him to pay fines, step down from Tesla’s board of directors and have his tweets pre-vetted by a lawyer.

The justices dismissed Musk’s petition without comment. Their reluctance to accept the billionaire’s appeal leaves intact an appeals court ruling from a year ago that rejected the Tesla founder’s claims of victimhood.

The saga began in 2018, when Musk tweeted, “Considering taking Tesla private for $420. Funding is secured.” He also posted: “Investor support confirmed. The only reason this is not certain is that it depends on a shareholder vote. Tesla shares rose more than six percent.

There was just one small problem: the funding wasn’t secured, and the SEC takes false claims that affect investors very seriously. The SEC said that “Musk did not even discuss, much less confirm, key terms of the deal, including price, with any potential source of financing” and that he “knew he had not satisfied numerous additional contingencies.” . The government agency said the publication caused “significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla shares.”

The SEC settlement hit his wallet hard, requiring Musk and Tesla to each pay $20 million in penalties. He also had to step down from his role as chairman of the automaker’s board and have a Tesla lawyer vet all investor-related tweets before posting. Of course, Musk later bought Twitter and changed its name to X. But at least that’s it it’s going great!

His appeal says the plea agreement forces him to “give up his First Amendment rights to speak on matters far beyond the alleged violations.” Musk, who currently there is with an estimated net worth of $185 billion, claims he was the victim of “economic duress” when he agreed to the settlement, which he describes as a tactic to “pressure and bully” him and his company.

A second appeals court, whose decision will now be the final word on the matter, rejected Musk’s arguments. “Parties who enter into consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights,” they said. The appeals court saw “no evidence to support Musk’s claim that the SEC used the consent decree to conduct bad faith, harassing investigations of his protected speech.”