On Monday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., imposed a gag order barring former President Donald Trump from making statements involving prosecutors, possible witnesses, and court staff — despite Trump being on the campaign trail.
It’s the second gag order imposed on Trump in the last month. The judge overseeing Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York earlier this month issued a more limited gag order prohibiting personal attacks against court personnel following a social media post from Trump.
On social media shortly after the hearing in Washington’s federal court, Trump responded and vowed to appeal.
Trump, in his current campaign for the presidency, has been focused on what he calls the weaponization of government. For example, the campaign has been selling shirts with his mugshot on them. Sure enough, Trump has also campaigned against the gag order.
During a campaign appearance in Iowa later Monday, Trump decried the order as unconstitutional, and he claimed it would only help him in the polls.
The gag order may limit Trump’s campaign strategy. But it may be only the beginning of an unprecedented fight over what limits can be placed on the speech of a defendant who is also campaigning for America’s highest public office.
Gag orders are not unheard of in high-profile cases, but there is little legal precedent for court orders limiting the speech of defendants running for public office and none addressing presidential candidates. Legal experts have said the issue may end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Speaking from the bench, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said Trump is entitled to criticize the Justice Department generally and assert his belief that the case is politically motivated but can’t mount a “smear campaign” against individual prosecutors or court personnel.
“No other criminal defendant would be allowed to do so, and I’m not going to allow it in this case,” Chutkan said.
Chutkan, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, said she would impose “sanctions as may be necessary” if the gag order is violated, but she wasn’t more specific. Judges can threaten gag order violators with fines or jail time.
Jailing a leading presidential candidate before their trial could prompt serious political blowback and pose logistical hurdles.
While ending the stream of Trump’s harsh language may make the case easier to manage, the court order may also fuel Trump’s claims of political persecution. Trump’s campaign quickly seized on the gag order in a fundraising appeal email Monday afternoon, claiming that it was requested by Biden.
In the D.C. case, Trump faces charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The prosecution is led by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Trump is also facing three other, unrelated cases in criminal court. Plus, he’s headed to Manhattan on Tuesday for an additional trial in civil court.
At rallies and in social media posts, Trump has repeatedly sought to vilify Smith and other prosecutors, casting himself as the victim of a politicized justice system working to deny him another term.
Trump’s lawyer John Lauro fiercely opposed any gag order, saying Trump is entitled to criticize prosecutors and “speak truth to oppression.”
“He is allowed to make statements the prosecution doesn’t like. That’s part of living with the First Amendment,” said Lauro, who declined to comment on the ruling after the hearing.
The ruling came as Trump was onboard his plane traveling to early-voting Iowa for a pair of campaign events. It is unclear whether Trump will abide by the new restrictions, and for how long. In a statement, a Trump spokesperson called the judge’s decision “an absolute abomination.”
The prosecution argued that Trump knows that his incendiary remarks — calling the justice system “rigged,” Chutkan a “Trump-hating judge,” and prosecutors a “team of thugs” — could inspire his supporters to threaten or harass his targets.
“What Mr. Lauro is saying is the defendant is above the law and he is not subject to the rules of this court like any other defendant is,” prosecutor Molly Gaston told the judge. “All this order would do is prevent him from using the campaign as an opportunity to make materially prejudicial statements about this case.”
The judge repeatedly pushed back against claims from the defense that prosecutors were seeking to censor Trump’s political speech. Chutkan said Trump “does not have a right to say and do exactly as he pleases.”
“You keep talking about censorship like the defendant has unfettered First Amendment rights. He doesn’t,” Chutkan told Lauro. “We’re not talking about censorship here. We’re talking restrictions to ensure there is a fair administration of justice on this case.”
She also cut off Trump’s lawyer when he suggested the case was politically motivated, telling him: “Obviously, you have an audience other than me in mind.” And she rejected a defense bid to delay the trial, currently scheduled to begin in March, until after the 2024 election, saying “this trial will not yield to the election cycle.”
Lauro said Trump had not violated his pretrial conditions, and those were enough to keep him in check for the future. He told the judge, “What you have put in place is working.” Chutkan burst out laughing.
“I’m going to have to take issue with that,” the judge said.
Reading aloud a slew of statements from Trump, Chutkan repeatedly raised concerns that his remarks could inspire violence.
“If you call certain people thugs enough times doesn’t that suggest, Mr. Lauro, that someone should get them off the streets?” she asked Trump’s lawyer.
Prosecutors said Trump’s litany of attacks was already having consequences. They noted that one of the team’s top prosecutors received intimidating communications after being singled out by Trump, and a Texas woman was charged in August with making death threats against Chutkan in a phone message left at her chambers.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.