Judge sets limits on Trump’s comments
Ruling in conspiracy case aims to end ‘smear’ posts
WASHINGTON – U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan set limits Monday on what Donald Trump can say about prosecutors, witnesses and the judge’s staff in his election conspiracy case to avoid influencing the jury during trial.
Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith asked for the order to stop Trump’s speeches and statements on social media that attack witnesses, prosecutors and the judge in ways that can sometimes provoke his supporters to threaten violence.
But Trump opposed the order as political interference and a violation of his First Amendment right to speech in the 2024 presidential campaign. Trump also had asked Chutkan to remove herself from the case, which she rejected.
Chutkan ordered Trump not to make or post statements targeting Smith, court staff or witnesses. For example, Trump can no longer call Smith a “thug” or “deranged,” she said.
Chutkan said there would be no restrictions on criticism of the Justice Department generally or about his belief the case is politically motivated. But the judge said Trump can’t mount a “smear campaign” against prosecutors and 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.
Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that he would appeal the decision. He could appeal the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Trump’s presidential campaign issued a statement calling the decision “an absolute abomination” and “another partisan knife stuck in the heart of our Democracy.”
“President Trump will continue to fight for our Constitution, the American people’s right to support him, and to keep our country free of the chains of weaponized and targeted law enforcement,” the statement said.
Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the bench order appeared narrowly tailored, but enforcing the eventual written order could still become a challenge.
“It leaves a lot of political speech available for former President Donald Trump,” Muller said.
“But the details in a future order will be tricky to assess in the months to come. And if the court needs to enforce the order in the future because of an apparent violation, it will be yet another challenge.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., was at the hearing “to see if Judge Chutkan is really going to destroy the 1st amendment,” she said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Trump is already facing restrictions in his New York civil trial, which is determining damages after Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron had ruled he committed fraud for years in valuing his real estate properties.
The order came after Trump reposted a picture on Truth Social of Engoron’s clerk, Allison Greenfield, alleging she was the “girlfriend” of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Engoron ordered participants in Trump’s civil trial not to disparage his staffers on social media.
Chutkan’s case is one of four criminal trials pending against Trump that could muzzle him during the campaign. If trials are held as scheduled, they could sideline him from the hustings for months at a time and the court order could stifle his prolific posts on social media.
“We have no interest in stopping the defendant from running for office or defending his reputation, nor does our proposed order do this,” senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston said.
Here is a sample of Trump’s posts or statements before requests for gag orders:
The judge in his New York civil fraud case, Engoron, should be disbarred and thrown out of office.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is suing Trump and his companies for alleged fraud, is “corrupt,” a “racist” and a “monster.”
Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump on suspicion of mishandling of classified documents and an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, is “deranged” and a “psycho” who “looks like a crackhead.”
Chutkan is “a fraud dressed up as a judge” and “a biased, Trump-hating judge.”
Retiring Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, committed “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”
“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Trump said in one social media post.
Prosecutors argued that a gag order was necessary to prevent Trump from threatening or intimidating witnesses or victims in his case.
“The defendant knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets,” prosecutors Gaston and Thomas Windom wrote for Smith.
Smith had asked Chutkan on Sept. 15 to limit Trump’s statements and posts outside court filings that contain “prejudicial” statements. Smith warned about potential harm to public officials and intimidation of witnesses.
In August, a Texas woman, Abigail Jo Shry, was charged after she was accused of calling Chutkan’s chambers, addressed her using a racist term and “threatened to kill anyone who went after former President Trump,” according to court records. Shry’s trial is set for Oct. 30.
John Lauro, one of Trump’s lawyers, accused prosecutors of “seeking to censor a political candidate in the middle of a campaign.” Lauro said Trump had not violated his pretrial conditions, and those were enough to keep him in check for the future, telling 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, citing Trump’s remarks about the jury pool in Washington, Smith and his staff.
“You keep talking about censorship like the defendant has unfettered First Amendment rights. He doesn’t,” Chutkan said. “We’re not talking about censorship here. We’re talking restrictions to ensure there is a fair administration of justice on this case.”
Trump’s lawyers had said language in the 45-page indictment “read very much like a campaign press release” that could “poison President Trump’s defense.” The lawyers argued prosecutors wanted to strip Trump of his First Amendment rights during the presidential campaign.
“The Court should reject this transparent gamesmanship and deny the motion entirely,” wrote lawyers Lauro, Todd Blanche, Gregory Singer and Filzah Pavalon.
Trump is fundraising off the dispute. In an email Oct. 4 seeking contributions, Trump said the Justice Department is trying to censor him and is interfering in the 2024 election.
“In other words, in just a few short weeks, Crooked Joe’s weaponized DOJ may very well get away with stripping Biden’s leading opponent (ME) of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech in the 2024 presidential election,” Trump wrote.