Trump challenges gag order in DC Circuit Court.
OAN’s Daniel Baldwin
6:32 PM – Thursday, November 2, 2023
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has filed an appeal to a D.C. judge’s gag order on Thursday evening.
“The Gag Order violates the First Amendment rights of President Trump and over 100 million Americans who listen to him,” stated Trump attorney John Lauro in the filing.
The appeal comes after Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s request to stay the gag order she implemented. The gag order prevents Trump from criticizing Special Counsel Jack Smith, his staff, any court staff, or any reasonably foreseeable witness in the case. Chutkan argued that Trump’s speech could lead to threats to participants in the trial, jeopardizing the integrity of the proceedings. Lauro took issue with this reasoning.
“The prosecution’s claim that his core political speech suddenly poses a threat to the administration of justice is baseless,” Lauro argued. “The prosecutors and potential witnesses addressed by President Trump’s speech are high-level government officials and public figures, many of whom routinely attack President Trump in their own public statements, media interviews, and books.”
Lauro asserts that the gag order unconstitutionally hampers Trump’s “core political and campaign speech.”
“Likewise, the First Amendment’s ‘constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office,’” Lauro emphasized.
Trump’s legal team also argues that the gag order infringes upon the First Amendment rights of “tens of millions of Americans” who will no longer hear Trump’s speech. In addition, Lauro claims that since Trump’s speech does not constitute incitement to lawless action, it should be viewed as unconstitutional.
“The court did not hold, and the prosecution does not contend, that any of President Trump’s public statements constitute threats, ‘fighting words,’ or incitement to imminent lawless action,” Lauro stated. “Thus, the Gag Order restricts President Trump’s speech based solely upon the anticipated reaction of unidentified, independent third parties. This is a classic heckler’s veto, which the First Amendment categorically forbids. Under the First Amendment, public speakers ‘are not chargeable with the danger’ that their audiences ‘might react with disorder or violence.’”
Lauro also argues that the gag order is not narrowly tailored and “incurably vague.”
The Trump legal team is asking the D.C. Circuit Court to enter a temporary stay of the order and issue a ruling by Nov. 10.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
In the summer of 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement gained national attention.
House GOP leadership outlines agenda priorities with a new speaker at the helm.
Ohio voters cast their ballots here, and the results could change state-wide abortion access.
Thousands of people are expected to attend a Free Palestine march in D.C. on Saturday, Nov 4th.
PayPal added nearly $4 billion to its market value after pledging to become “leaner,” which fired up investors.
China’s most popular social media platforms announced that “self-media” accounts with more than 500,000 followers will be required to display real-name information.
Intel rose more than 9% on Friday and sparked a jump in chip stocks after the personal computer market rebounded from its quarters-long slump.
Amazon.com rose 7% on Friday as it aims for a larger share of the booming artificial intelligence market in a race with Microsoft.
rnrn
Why does Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, argue that the gag order is unconstitutional and infringes on Trump’s political and campaign speech rights?
Title: Trump’s Legal Team Appeals Judge’s Gag Order, Citing First Amendment Violation
Introduction
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has filed an appeal to a gag order issued by a D.C. judge, arguing that it violates Trump’s First Amendment rights and infringes upon the freedom of speech. This article examines the arguments presented in the appeal and their implications regarding the ongoing trial.
The Gag Order and Its Implications
Judge Tanya Chutkan implemented a gag order that forbids Trump from criticizing Special Counsel Jack Smith, his staff, any court staff, or any foreseeable witnesses in the case. The judge justified this order by claiming that allowing Trump to speak freely could lead to threats against trial participants and potentially compromise the integrity of the proceedings. However, Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, strongly disagrees with this reasoning.
Lauro’s Argument
Lauro asserts that the gag order not only violates Trump’s First Amendment rights but also impedes his ability to engage in core political and campaign speech. The attorney emphasizes that Trump’s speech has always been protected under the First Amendment, even when aimed at high-level government officials and public figures who regularly critique him. Lauro argues that the court’s reasoning is baseless and accuses it of engaging in a “classic heckler’s veto,” in which a speaker’s rights are restricted based solely on the anticipated reaction of third parties.
First Amendment Entitlement
Lauro underscores the importance of the First Amendment in protecting political speech during campaigns. He highlights that this guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application in the conduct of campaigns for political office. By impeding Trump’s ability to express his views freely, the gag order infringes on the rights of tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise hear his speech and participate in the political discourse.
Incitement and Unconstitutionality
Lauro further asserts that Trump’s speeches do not constitute incitement to lawless action. Therefore, he argues that the gag order based on an “anticipated reaction” of independent third parties is unconstitutional. Lauro points out that the court did not consider Trump’s public statements as threats, fighting words, or incitement to imminent lawless actions. As such, the gag order is seen as unnecessarily broad, infringing on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Conclusion
Trump’s legal team has filed an appeal against the gag order imposed by Judge Tanya Chutkan, arguing that it violates Trump’s First Amendment rights and hampers his core political and campaign speech rights. The team highlights that Trump’s speeches have not incited lawless actions and that the gag order restricts his speech based on the anticipated reactions of unidentified third parties, which is strictly prohibited under the First Amendment. The outcome of this appeal has significant implications for the ongoing trial and the broader discussion surrounding constitutional rights in political and legal spheres.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...