ACLU Joins Trump’s Battle Against “Vague” Gag Order
Former President Donald Trump’s staunch critic, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is standing with him in his fight against a federal judge’s order that restricts his speech, calling it “vague” and “impermissibly broad.”
In an October 25 statement, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, emphasized the importance of protecting free speech rights, stating, “no modern-day president did more damage to civil liberties and civil rights than President Trump, but if we allow his free speech rights to be abridged, we know that other unpopular voices—even ones we agree with—will also be silenced.”
“As much as we disagreed with Donald Trump’s policies, everyone is entitled to the same First Amendment protection against gag orders that are too broad and too vague,” Mr. Romero said.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, presiding over President Trump’s case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an order on October 17 that prohibits him from making statements that “target” the special counsel’s team, court staff, and potential witnesses.
The ACLU’s brief supports the defense’s request to stay the order, which Judge Chutkan granted.
Both the ACLU and President Trump’s attorneys, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, criticized the court’s use of the term “target” and its language regarding potential witness testimony.
“The First Amendment rights of the accused require any court order restraining their speech to be both clearly defined and narrowly framed,” reads the ACLU’s brief from October 25.
“The order’s prohibition on speech that ‘targets’ certain named and unnamed individuals is neither. Reading the order, [the] defendant cannot possibly know what he is permitted to say, and what he is not.”
Judge Chutkan’s order has sparked debate and raised concerns about the extent of judicial power in limiting political speech.
“If our freedom of speech is to mean anything, the court cannot allow the prosecution to silence the leading presidential candidate whose speech and message are politically threatening to the incumbent president,” wrote Mr. Lauro and Mr. Blanche in their October 20 brief.
However, Judge Chutkan maintains that criminal defendants do not have unrestricted First Amendment rights when their speech may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
In her October 17 order, she reiterated her concerns about President Trump’s potential to provoke intimidation or harassment of individuals involved in the case.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts via AP)
“Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when [the] defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed,” wrote Judge Chutkan.
“Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion, [the] defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff.”
The government’s deadline for responding to President Trump’s motion was October 25, and he can reply by October 28. Justice Department attorney Molly Gaston has already accused the defense of attempting to place President Trump above the law in their opposition to the gag order.
The impact of Judge Chutkan’s order on President Trump’s ability to speak about his case remains uncertain, but legal experts, including professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School, have raised significant constitutional questions.
“While appellate courts have generally upheld lower courts’ gag orders, there have always been constitutional concerns regarding the limitations on not only defendants’ free speech rights but also their vigorous defense by counsel,” wrote Mr. Turley.
Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Judge Chutkan’s order would be “upheld on appeal.”
He shared a Slate article in which two former federal prosecutors—Dennis Aftergut and Frederick Baron—praised Judge Chutkan’s “elegant” order.
Mr. Aftergut and Mr. Baron argued that Judge Chutkan “reinforced the legal permanency of the order by adding” a note clarifying that the order shouldn’t be interpreted as prohibiting statements criticizing the government, asserting innocence, or criticizing political rivals.
How does the ACLU’s decision to support Trump in this battle align with their history of opposing his policies, and what does it signify about their commitment to protecting individual rights and freedom of speech?
ACLU Joins Trump’s Battle Against “Vague” Gag Order
Former President Donald Trump’s staunch critic, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is standing with him in his fight against a federal judge’s order that restricts his speech, calling it “vague” and “impermissibly broad.”
In an October 25 statement, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, emphasized the importance of protecting free speech rights, stating, “no modern-day president did more damage to civil liberties and civil rights than President Trump, but if we allow his free speech rights to be abridged, we know that other unpopular voices—even ones we agree with—will also be silenced.”
“As much as we disagreed with Donald Trump’s policies, everyone is entitled to the same First Amendment protection against gag orders that are too broad and too vague,” Mr. Romero said.
The ACLU’s decision to support Trump in this battle may come as a surprise to many given their history of opposing his policies. However, their commitment to protecting individual rights and freedom of speech is unwavering.
The gag order in question was issued by a federal judge and aimed at preventing Trump from making certain public statements. It is meant to restrict his ability to influence ongoing legal proceedings.
While some argue that such a gag order is necessary to ensure a fair trial, the ACLU believes that it goes against the fundamental principles of free speech and sets a dangerous precedent.
The organization argues that if Trump’s speech rights can be restricted in this manner, it opens the door for the suppression of other voices, both popular and unpopular. In a democratic society, the protection of free speech is essential to the functioning of a robust and inclusive public discourse.
The ACLU has filed a brief challenging the gag order, arguing that it violates the First Amendment. They assert that it is incumbent upon the courts to carefully consider the scope and necessity of any restrictions on speech, and in this case, the order falls short of meeting the required legal standards.
By joining Trump’s fight against the gag order, the ACLU is not endorsing his views or actions. Rather, they are upholding the principle that even those with unpopular opinions deserve the same protections under the law.
The case has garnered significant attention and is being closely watched by legal experts and advocates for free speech. The outcome will have implications beyond Trump’s specific circumstances, as it will set a precedent for how future cases involving similar restrictions on speech are handled.
In an era where public figures and politicians often face backlash and criticism for their words and actions, it is crucial to safeguard the right to express dissenting views. The ACLU’s support of Trump’s challenge to the gag order underscores the importance of upholding the principles of free speech and protecting the rights of all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations.
Now loading...