Donald Trump is subject to a gag order in two cases. In the civil case in New York, Trump was just fined $5000 for not removing a post naming and attacking the Judge’s clerk, despite court order. Trump did remove it from Truth Social, but not the campaign site.
Trump also has a gag order in the DC federal court case, as we previously covered:
In order to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain restrictions on public statements by interested parties. Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed. See ECF No. 57 at 3–5. Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion, Defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. See id. at 6–12. Defendant has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are liars, or “thugs,” or deserve death. Id.; ECF No. 64 at 9–10. The court finds that such statements pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2) attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and harassment. And that risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet; once an individual is publicly targeted, even revoking the offending statement may not abate the subsequent threats, harassment, or other intimidating effects during the pretrial as well as trial stages of this case.
Trump filed a motion for a stay pending appeal with the district court judge earlier today, and the judge has granted a stay until further hearing next week.
From the Motion for a Stay filed earlier today by Trump attorney (and Legal Insurrection reader) John Lauro:
No Court in American history has imposed a gag order on a criminal defendant who is campaigning for public office—least of all, on the leading candidate for President of the United States. This Court’s Opinion and Order of October 17, 2023, Doc. 105 (the “Gag Order”), is the first of its kind. Given its extraordinary nature, one would expect an extraordinary and compelling justification for the Gag Order. But that is conspicuously absent. Instead, the Court generically states it must enter the Gag Order to prevent supposed “threats” and “harassment.” This theory falters under even minimal scrutiny.First, as the prosecution concedes, President Trump has not unlawfully threatened or harassed anyone. Doc. 103 at 10:4–6 (Oct. 16, 2023 H’rg. Tr., hereafter “Tr.”) (“[T]he government’s motion does not seem to allege that [President] Trump has actually violated any of his conditions of release or other federal law.”). Thus, unsurprisingly, the prosecution presents no witness who says they feel threatened or harassed by President Trump. In fact, when asked at oral argument about evidence supporting this concern, the prosecution admitted “of course this prejudice is speculative. We’re not going to know if these witnesses are intimidated or if this threatening activity is intimidating other witnesses until folks testify at trial, and we may not even know.” Tr. at 62:18–21. The Court, likewise, cited no evidence on this point, made no specific findings, and declined to give any meaningful consideration to the prosecution’s lack of proof. These are fatal omissions. A prior restraint cannot be based on speculation. Rather, the prosecution must demonstrate a “clear and present danger” to a compelling government interest. United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 596, 600 (6th Cir. 1987).Unable to justify the Gag Order based on President Trump’s actions, the prosecution pivots to third parties, alleging that unnamed others, outside of President Trump’s control, acted improperly before this case began. Such concerns cannot justify the Gag Order. The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that citizens of this country cannot be censored based on a fear of what others might do. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (“[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy . . . except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”).Equally important, the prosecution submitted, and the Court considered, no evidence on the critical question of whether alternative, non-speech-restricting measures might be effective in advancing the asserted interest in protecting witnesses. This resulted in a breathtakingly overbroad Gag Order that, outside of a handful of narrow exceptions, prohibits any public comment regarding a wide and undefined set of individuals and subjects. In doing so, the Gag Order shields public officials in the highest echelons of government from criticism, including key political rivals.At bottom, the Gag Order violates virtually every fundamental principle of our First Amendment jurisprudence. It imposes an overbroad, content-based prior restraint on the leading Presidential candidate’s core political speech—notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s instruction that First Amendment rights have their fullest and most urgent application precisely in the conduct of campaigns for political office. Likewise, by restricting President Trump’s speech, the Gag Order eviscerates the rights of his audiences, including hundreds of millions of American citizens who the Court now forbids from listening to President Trump’s thoughts on important issues.Neither the prosecution nor the Court come close to justifying such restrictions. Instead, in a dizzying irony, the Gag Order lists a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting the civil rights of criminal defendants in hopes of silencing the criminal defendant in this case. This violation of the First Amendment is egregious and intolerable. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 8(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and this Court’s Rules, the Court should immediately stay the Gag Order pending appeal.
The court granted the motion today:
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant’s opposed 110 Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, Request for Temporary Administrative Stay, and Memorandum in Support, it is hereby ORDERED that the court’s 105 Opinion and Order is administratively STAYED to permit the parties’ briefing and the court’s consideration of Defendant’s Motion. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall file any opposition to Defendant’s Motion by October 25, 2023, and that Defendant shall file any Reply by October 28, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/20/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/20/2023)
If the gag order stays in place, this is going to SCOTUS. Trump already served his Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals.
In the meantime, trial is still scheduled for March 4.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY