Three federal appeals court judges blasted Donald Trump’s lawyer John Sauer on Monday over his efforts to overturn a partial injunction against the former president in the 2020 federal election subversion case against him, before expressing openness to narrowing its scope.
The panel eventually adjourned until Nov. 30 without immediately ruling on the 77-year-old’s request, but their line of questions left hints that they could pursue an intermediate approach.
Sauer based his argument on Trump’s First Amendment rights while outlining how the order could affect his 2024 presidential campaign.
“The order is unprecedented and it sets a terrible precedent for future restrictions on core political speech,” the lawyer said in his opening remarks.
“Would your position be different if it were a year ago?” Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, appointed by Barack Obama, pressed Sauer at one point.
“I think the gag order is still unconstitutional,” he replied.
Trump’s lawyer John Sauer argued that the gag order interfered with Donald Trump’s First Amendment rights. North Dakota House Education Committee
“OK, so the fact that we have an ongoing campaign is irrelevant. What’s important to you – and this is still political speech – that gets very high protection, no doubt,” Millett replied.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan initially censured Trump on October 17, barring the former president from making statements that “targeted” key players in his trial.
Under the “narrowly tailored” gag order, Trump is allowed to broadly criticize the Justice Department and Washington, DC.
Donald Trump has accused federal prosecutors of trying to censor and silence him as he campaigns for the White House.Getty Images
But he cannot “target” special counsel Jack Smith or his staff, court personnel, or “any reasonably foreseeable witness or the content of their testimony.”
“This is not about whether I like the language that Mr. Trump used,” Chutkan explained earlier. “This is about language that poses a danger to the administration of justice.”
Smith’s office has appealed to Chutkan to impose a gag order and cited several social media posts, including one in which the former president said, “IF YOU TAKE ME OUT, I’LL TAKE YOU OUT!”
Chutkan briefly suspended the gag order when Trump’s team filed an appeal, but then reinstated it in late October after the former president lashed out at Smith at least three times during a break.
Judge Patricia Millett was the most vocal member of the appeals panel during Monday’s hearing.AP
Social media posts flagged by Smith’s team featured in various questions during Monday’s appeal hearing.
“Since the day after the indictment, the defendant posted on social media, ‘If you chase me, I will chase you.’ Can you say that’s protected speech?” Millet then asked.
“Absolutely,” replied Sauer.
“If he posts it with a picture of a district court judge,” he said.
“I’ll have to look at the case law,” he replied. “That would be more problematic.”
“I don’t hear you giving any weight to the interest in a fair trial,” he said later.
The 2020 election subversive case is now scheduled for trial next March. John Lamparski/Shutterstock
When it was special assistant counsel Cecil VanDevender’s turn to defend the gag order, the justices echoed the scope of Chutkan’s ban.
“She has to say ‘Miss Manners’ while everyone else is throwing targets at her?” Millett mused at one point.
“It will be very difficult in the debate, when the other person criticizes you. Your lawyer must have a script of little things you can say.”
The justices also appeared skeptical that major public figures, such as former Attorney General Bill Barr, would change their prospective testimony in response to Trump.
“The notion that high-profile public figures or government officials who carry great responsibilities such as prosecutors cannot face some inflammatory language seems to me to contradict Supreme Court precedent,” Millet said at one point.
“It is abundantly clear that when a defendant engages in repeated fiery personal attacks on a person, there is a causal relationship between that person receiving threats of harassment and intimidation,” VanDevender responded.
US District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan said the gag order was about “language that poses a danger to the administration of justice.” US COURT via REUTERS
VanDevender went on to argue that “the district court correctly found that the defendant’s established practice of using his public platform to target his adversaries, including trial participants in this case, poses a significant and immediate risk to the fairness and integrity of these proceedings. .”
Chutkan has faced death threats, including from Texas woman Abigail Jo Shry, who was charged back in August.
Shry left a voicemail message warning that he would “kill anyone who goes after former President Trump.”
Millett noted that the threats came after Trump’s famous post.
Other messages Chutkan received included one in which he was called a “stupid slave n—er,” per court filings.
Several times during his line of questioning to VanDevender, Millett appeared to struggle with how the gag order applied to the former president’s criticism of public figures in circumstances seemingly unrelated to the election case.
Donald Trump is also caught in another battle of oral orders for his civil fraud trial in New York.REUTERS
Millet was joined on the panel by another Obama appointee, Judge Nina Pillard, and Judge Bradley Garcia, who was appointed by President Biden.
Trump has received support in his appeal from the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union, the conservative group America First Legal, and a handful of Republican attorneys general who submitted amicus filings arguing for the order to be overturned.
Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/
