Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that her order should stay in effect while the former president’s lawyers pursue an appeal.
- Share full article
Mr. Trump’s lawyers, largely led by John F. Lauro, have argued that the gag order was a violation of the former president’s First Amendment rights.
A federal judge reinstated a gag order on former President Donald J. Trump on Sunday that had been temporarily placed on hold nine days earlier, reimposing restrictions on what Mr. Trump can say about witnesses and prosecutors in the case in which he stands accused of seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
In making her decision, the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, also denied a request by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to freeze the gag order for what could have been a considerably longer period, saying it can remain in effect as a federal appeals court in Washington reviews it.
Judge Chutkan’s ruling about the order was posted publicly on PACER, the federal court database, late on Sunday, but her detailed order explaining her reasoning was not immediately available because of what appeared to be a glitch in the computer system.
The dispute about the gag order, which was initially put in place on Oct. 16 after several rounds of court filings and a hard-fought hearing in Federal District Court in Washington, has for weeks pitted two significant legal arguments against each other.
From the start, Mr. Trump’s lawyers, largely led by John F. Lauro, have argued that the order was not merely a violation of the former president’s First Amendment rights. Rather, the order “silenced” him at a critical moment: just as he has been shoring up his position as the Republican Party’s leading candidate for president in the 2024 election.
Federal prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, have countered that even though Mr. Trump is running for the country’s highest office, he does not have permission to issue public statements threatening or intimidating people involved in the election interference case, especially if those remarks might incite violence in those who read or hear them.
When she first imposed the gag order, Judge Chutkan sided with the government, acknowledging Mr. Trump’s First Amendment rights but saying that she intended to treat him like any other criminal defendant — even if he was running for president.
Mr. Trump’s constitutional rights could not permit him “to launch a pretrial smear campaign” against people involved in the case, she said, adding, “No other defendant would be allowed to do so, and I’m not going to allow it in this case.”
Soon after Judge Chutkan issued the gag order, Mr. Lauro began the process of appealing it. A few days later, he asked the judge to freeze the order until the appeals court made its own decision, saying that the ruling she had put in place was “breathtakingly overbroad” and “unconstitutionally vague.”
That same day, Judge Chutkan placed the order on hold for one week, inviting further arguments about whether it should be in effect while Mr. Trump’s lawyers appealed it.
In response, prosecutors working for Mr. Smith argued that the gag order needed to be put back in place at once because while it was on hold, Mr. Trump had violated it by attacking Mr. Smith at least three times by name.
The former president, the prosecutors noted, had also violated the frozen order by twice making public comments about Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, who could appear as a witness in the case.
“The defendant has capitalized on the court’s administrative stay to, among other prejudicial conduct, send an unmistakable and threatening message” to Mr. Meadows, prosecutors wrote to Judge Chutkan. “Unless the court lifts the administrative stay, the defendant will not stop his harmful and prejudicial attacks.”
Mr. Trump is also facing a more limited gag order in a civil case in New York, where he is standing trial on charges of having fraudulently inflated the value of his real estate holdings for years.
Last week, Justice Arthur F. Engoron, the judge overseeing the New York civil case, fined Mr. Trump $10,000 for violating the order, which bars the former president from going after members of the court’s staff. The $10,000 fine followed a similar $5,000 fine that Justice Engoron imposed on Mr. Trump days earlier.
Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump. More about Alan Feuer
- Share full article
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Source: nytimes.com
