The former president now has one option left if he wants to keep fighting the order: appealing to the Supreme Court.
- Share full article
Former President Donald J. Trump visited a polling location in Londonderry, N.H., on Tuesday.
The full federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s bid to lift a gag order imposed on him in the criminal case in which he stands accused of trying to subvert the results of the 2020 election.
The terse ruling, issued on behalf of the 11 judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, leaves Mr. Trump with only the option of appealing to the Supreme Court if he wants to keep fighting the gag order, which restricts his ability to publicly criticize certain people involved in the legal proceeding.
D. John Sauer, a lawyer for Mr. Trump who has been handling appeals, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Peter Carr, a spokesman for Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the federal prosecution of Mr. Trump, declined to comment.
The dispute is one of the extraordinary legal fights spinning off from the cases against Mr. Trump. It has pit the First Amendment rights of a former president and the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination against fears that his hostile rhetoric targeting people involved in the matter could spur supporters to acts of violence.
The judge overseeing the election case, Tanya S. Chutkan of Federal District Court, first imposed a gag order on Mr. Trump in October. It restricted him from making public statements attacking witnesses and specific prosecutors or court staff members — but not herself — in the case. Mr. Trump appealed, saying the order violated his First Amendment rights.
In December, a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld the order but narrowed its terms, including to allow him to keep attacking one of his main targets: Mr. Smith, the special counsel. Mr. Trump then asked the full D.C. Circuit to intervene and rehear the matter, seeking a further narrowing or elimination of the order.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Source: nytimes.com
