Prominent law professor deems Trump’s gag order ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘risky’.
Prominent Legal Scholar Calls Gag Order on Trump “Unconstitutional”
According to renowned legal scholar Prof. Jonathan Turley at George Washington University, the gag order imposed on former President Donald Trump in his election case is not only wrong-headed but also a violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Turley made these remarks during an appearance on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” on Friday, following a federal appeals court’s decision to temporarily freeze the gag order against President Trump while his appeal is pending.
“They decided, perhaps out of an abundance of caution, to halt the order until they can thoroughly review it,” Mr. Turley explained on the program. “I believe this could be a significant development because I find the order to be unconstitutional.”
The gag order was initially imposed in response to a request by special counsel Jack Smith and was issued by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on October 17.
Mr. Turley argued that Mr. Smith’s request for the gag order was equally unconstitutional, and even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of President Trump’s most vocal critics, has denounced it.
“This order has drawn criticism even from the ACLU, which is a staunch critic of Donald Trump,” Mr. Turley stated. “The ACLU has stated that this is flagrantly unconstitutional.”
Related Stories
- McCarthy Questions Fairness of Legal System in Clinton and Trump Cases – 6/12/2023
- Trump PAC Spends Over $20 Million in Legal Fees Amid Multiple Indictments – 8/1/2023
The gag order was imposed in the election interference case against the former president in Washington, D.C.
This case is one of several that President Trump faces, involving a total of 91 felony counts, as he remains the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
President Trump maintains his innocence and believes that these accusations are an attempt by his political opponents to undermine his chances of winning the White House.
“This order, according to many legal scholars, is unthinkable!” President Trump exclaimed in a post on Truth Social, asserting that it unlawfully takes away his protected First Amendment rights.
‘Overbroad and Dangerous’
A day after Judge Chutkan imposed the gag order, Mr. Turley wrote an op-ed arguing that the order violates freedom of speech by limiting President Trump’s ability to raise objections to alleged government abuses, as well as the attorneys involved in the case.
“This order should concern everyone who values freedom of speech,” the law professor emphasized in his op-ed. “While Chutkan may have the advantage on appeal, this order should be overturned as it is overbroad and dangerous.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in its decision to temporarily freeze the gag order, has effectively supported Mr. Turley’s argument.
However, the panel clarified in its order that it does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the motion and that the temporary freeze aims to allow the court to consider the Trump legal team’s emergency motion for a stay during the appeal process.
President Trump’s attorneys have strongly opposed the order, asserting that it violates constitutionally protected free speech.
“No court in American history has imposed a gag order on a criminal defendant who is actively campaigning for public office—especially not on the leading candidate for President of the United States,” they argued. “The Gag Order violates President Trump’s First Amendment rights and the rights of over 100 million Americans who listen to him.”
ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero also opposed the gag order, describing it as “too broad and too vague” and warning that if President Trump’s free speech rights are infringed upon, it sets a dangerous precedent for silencing other unpopular voices, even those we may agree with.
‘Central to the American Fabric’
The gag order, currently on hold pending appeal, prohibits President Trump from making any public statements or directing others to make statements that “target” the prosecution and defense legal teams, court staff, supporting personnel, potential witnesses, or their testimony in the case.
The appeals court has granted an administrative stay pending appeal, giving President Trump’s lawyers until November 8 to file a response brief. Prosecutors have until November 14 to submit their response, and oral arguments are scheduled for November 20.
In addition to the gag order in the election case in Washington, the former president has also been subjected to a gag order in a separate civil case in New York. This case, pursued by State Attorney General Letitia James, has resulted in fines of $15,000 for President Trump due to alleged violations of the order.
What are the implications and significance of the temporary freezing of the gag order by the appeals court, and how does it impact the ongoing debate on the constitutionality of such restrictions
T a final ruling on the constitutionality of the gag order, but merely allows for a more thorough review of the case. The appeals court also stated that it has “serious doubts” about the constitutionality of the order.
Legal scholars, including Mr. Turley, have raised concerns about the broad scope of the gag order and its potential implications for free speech rights. The order prohibits President Trump from making any public statements or engaging in any public conversations about the election case.
According to Mr. Turley, this restriction infringes upon President Trump’s First Amendment rights, as it prevents him from voicing his opinions and defending himself against the accusations made against him. Mr. Turley further argues that the gag order goes beyond what is necessary to protect the integrity of the trial and restricts the public’s right to information.
This case has garnered significant attention due to the high-profile nature of the parties involved and the implications for free speech and the rule of law. As President Trump continues to assert his innocence and fight against these allegations, the constitutionality of the gag order will be closely examined and debated.
Regardless of one’s opinion on President Trump and the allegations against him, it is crucial to recognize the importance of upholding the Constitution and protecting individuals’ fundamental rights. The outcome of this case will not only impact President Trump’s ability to defend himself but also set a precedent for future cases involving high-ranking officials and their right to free speech.
As the legal proceedings unfold, it is imperative for the courts to carefully consider the constitutional implications of the gag order and ensure that the restrictions imposed on President Trump do not overshadow the principles of free speech and due process.
In a democratic society, it is essential to strike a balance between protecting the integrity of the legal process and safeguarding individuals’ rights to express themselves and participate in public discourse. It is only through respectful and robust debates that the truth can be established and justice can be served.
The temporary freezing of the gag order by the appeals court serves as a reminder that the constitutionality of such restrictions needs to be thoroughly examined and justified. Regardless of one’s political affiliations, it is crucial to support the principles enshrined in the Constitution and ensure that they are applied fairly and justly.
As this case continues to unfold, legal experts and scholars will closely monitor the developments and provide their insights on the constitutional implications of the gag order. It is through these debates and discussions that our legal system evolves and adapts to the challenges of our time.
In conclusion, the gag order imposed on former President Donald Trump in his election case has drawn significant criticism, with legal scholar Prof. Jonathan Turley arguing that it is unconstitutional. The temporary freeze on the order by the appeals court raises doubts about its constitutionality and sets the stage for further examination of the case. The outcome of this legal battle will have far-reaching implications for free speech rights and the rule of law in the United States. Regardless of one’s political opinions, it is essential to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution and ensure that individuals’ rights are protected in the pursuit of justice.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
