Reinstates gag

Judge reinstates gag order against Trump

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had briefly paused the gag order in the federal election case, but she put it back into effect Sunday while Trump appeals.

By KYLE CHENEY and JOSH GERSTEIN

A federal judge has reinstated a gag order against Donald Trump, lifting a temporary hold she placed on it earlier this month and rejecting his claim that it unconstitutionally limits his free speech.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan paused the gag order on Oct. 20 amid Trump’s complaint that it was confusingly worded and request that she keep it on hold while he asked a federal appeals court to throw it out altogether.

But in a nine-page Sunday evening opinion, Chutkan reinstated her order, rejecting his claims that the order was unclear and that it unconstitutionally restricted his free speech rights. In addition, Chutkan noted that one of Trump’s recent statements — an attack on his former chief of staff Mark Meadows — would “almost certainly violate the order” had it been in effect.

Trump, citing an ABC report that Meadows had accepted immunity to testify to federal prosecutors, said last week that such cooperation was for “weaklings” and “cowards” and that any unfavorable testimony about him would have been a “lie.” Chutkan said this remark would plainly have cut against her order had it been in effect, “and for good reason.”

Chutkan reiterated that her decision to issue the original gag order earlier this month was rooted in evidence that Trump’s public attacks on witnesses, prosecutors and court personnel have routinely resulted in threats and harassment jeopardizing their safety and her duty to protect the “orderly administration of justice.” In such cases, she said, the Supreme Court and other legal precedents and rules have supported gag orders as a tool to protect the public’s interest in a fair trial.

Trump’s “repeated appeals to broad First Amendment values therefore ignores that the court — pursuant to its obligation to protect the integrity of the proceedings — recognized those values, but in balancing them against the potential prejudice resulting from certain kinds of statements, found them outweighed,” Chutkan wrote.

Chutkan noted that despite the clear problems with the Meadows statement, she would not act on it because the order had not been in effect. She noted that for any potential violations in the future, she would not reach any conclusions before giving both Trump and prosecutors a chance to “provide their positions on the statement’s meaning and permissibility.”

Chutkan cited another example of Trump’s recent statements accusing the Biden administration of rigging elections and vowing to produce “100% evidence” at his trial. This comment, she said, was permissible under the gag order, which allows Trump to assert his innocence and allege that his trial is politically motivated in broad terms that do not attack specific prosecutors. Her original order expressly allowed attacks on President Joe Biden, his political rival, and the Justice Department.

Overnight, Trump assailed Chutkan as a “Biased, Trump Hating Judge” and said the gag order will “put me at a disadvantage against my prosecutorial and political opponents.”

Chutkan, who is presiding over special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for charges stemming from his bid to subvert the 2020 election, imposed the gag order on the former president earlier this month at the request of prosecutors. She has contended that Trump’s candidacy for president has no bearing on how she intends to treat him as a criminal defendant.

Trump is charged with conspiring to derail the transfer of power despite losing the election in 2020 — in part by mounting a sweeping campaign of disinformation aimed at pressuring local and federal officials to unravel Biden’s victory. He is also charged with conspiring to obstruct Congress’ Jan. 6, 2021 proceedings to affirm the election results.

In her opinion, Chutkan also rejected pushback from Trump and his attorney, John Lauro, that the order was vaguely worded, unmanageable and unjustified. She said her decision to apply the gag order to “interested parties” was a reference to a well-established legal term that included prosecutors, the defendant and lawyers involved in the case. Her prohibition on statements “targeting” potential witnesses, she said, was similarly clear and intended to apply to specific cases that she identified during Oct. 16 the hearing on the gag order. In each case, she said, violations would depend on context but generally apply to statements that posed risks to prosecutors, court staff and witnesses, or statements intended to influence a witness’ testimony.

The judge said she would assess the “substance and context” of any statement before concluding that Trump committed any violations.

Chutkan’s order is separate from one issued by a judge in New York handling a state-court civil case aimed at his business empire. Trump has been twice fined by the judge there, for a total of $15,000, for violating a directive to cease public statements about the judge’s clerk and other court staff.