New York Appeals Court Denies Trump’s Request to Overturn Gag Order in Civil Trial

New York Appeals Court Denies Trump’s Request to Overturn Gag Order in Civil Trial

New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, denied former President Donald Trump’s request to overturn the gag order issued by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron.

Trump’s lawyers asked the Appellate Division to overturn the gag order, which has been in place since October 3.

An individual appellate judge placed a hold on the gag order in mid-November. The appeals court reinstated the gag order on November 30.

Lawyer Clifford Robert claimed the gag “orders violated the U.S. and New York state Constitutions by restricting Trump’s ‘First Amendment right to highlight serious concerns raised by the public and partisan activities of Justice Engoron’s Principal Law Clerk during an ongoing bench trial.'”

Clifford demanded an “expedited review“:

“Without expedited review, [the defendants] will continue to suffer irreparable injury daily, as they are silenced on matters implicating the appearance of bias and impropriety on the bench during a trial of immense stakes,” Trump attorney Clifford Robert wrote. “Petitioners’ counsel have no means of preserving evidence of or arguments regarding such bias and impropriety at this time, since the Gag Orders also prohibit in-court statements.”

The Court ruled that Trump’s team didn’t use the proper method to appeal the gag order:

As to the first cause of action, CPLR 7801(2) clarifies that article 78 review is not permitted in a civil or criminal action where it can be reviewed by other means, “unless it is an order summarily punishing a contempt committed in the presence of the court” (CPLR 7801[2]). The Contempt Orders here were not issued “summarily,” nor was the contempt “committed in the presence of the court.” To the extent there may have been appealable issues with respect to any of the procedures the court implemented in imposing the financial sanctions, the proper method of review would be to move to vacate the Contempt Orders, and then to take an appeal from the denial of those motions.

The Court also denied Trump’s request for an “extraordinary remedy” because it did not meet the requirements to prove minimal potential harm.

As to petitioners’ demand for a writ of prohibition with respect to the First Gag Order and the Contempt Orders, the Court of Appeals has found that the “extraordinary remedy” of a writ of prohibition lies only where a “clear legal right” to such relief exists. Permitting liberal use of this remedy would effectively achieve premature appellate review and undermine the statutory and constitutional regime governing the appellate process. Invoking this extraordinary remedy is only appropriate if there exists a substantial claim of an absence of jurisdiction or an act in excess of jurisdiction.

In determining whether to exercise the court’s discretion and grant a writ of prohibition, several factors are to be considered, including “the gravity of the harm which would be caused by an excess of power” and “whether the excess of power can be adequately corrected on appeal or by other ordinary proceedings at law or in equity.” Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court’s staff. Further, while the Gag Order and Contempt Orders were not issued pursuant to formal motion practice, they are reviewable through the ordinary appellate process.

BREAKING: New York Appeals Court denies Trump’s bid to overturn Judge Engoron’s limited gag order in N.Y. civil fraud case pic.twitter.com/uDuoiDM358

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) December 14, 2023

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.