TE Trump Loses Big Time In D.C. Appeals Court

In a blow to former President Donald Trump’s efforts, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has rejected his request to reconsider the gag order imposed on him during the 2020 election interference case. This decision means that the restriction preventing Trump from criticizing witnesses in criminal cases will remain in effect.

The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had already upheld the gag order on December 8th. Still, Trump, citing it as an unconstitutional limitation on his political speech, attempted to challenge it through appeals. Unfortunately for him, those attempts have proven unsuccessful.

The panel did modify the gag order slightly, allowing Trump to disparage special counsel Jack Smith, who is involved in the case. However, the ban on public statements about other known or foreseeable witnesses remains firmly in place.

Reacting to the panel’s ruling, Trump’s legal team sought a review of the gag order by the full federal appeals court in Washington. They argued that the panel’s decision contradicted Supreme Court precedent and the rulings of other appeals courts, underscoring the exceptional significance of the matter.

Judge Tanya Chutkan initially imposed the gag order in October, preventing Trump from making public statements targeting Smith, other prosecutors, court staff, and potential witnesses. While considering Trump’s challenge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily lifted the gag order, but it has now been reinstated following the latest ruling.

Prosecutors have staunchly defended the restrictions, emphasizing their necessity in safeguarding the integrity of the case and ensuring the safety of potential witnesses and other individuals involved. With the denial of Trump’s request for reconsideration, the gag order will persist unless he decides to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The federal appeals court has kept the case in the spotlight by upholding the limitations on Trump’s ability to criticize witnesses in criminal cases despite his claims of infringement of freedom of speech. Its implications for the intersection of politics and the justice system continue to draw significant attention.