She did specify that the order did not strip First Amendment rights entirely because President Trump could still criticize President Joe Biden.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected a motion filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to file an amici brief opposing the gag order on former President Donald Trump.
President Trump is being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, who alleges that the former president interfered with the 2020 elections via “deceit” and “dishonest” means. The special counsel’s office had proposed a gag order, and after a hearing, Judge Chutkan granted a gag order, albeit of a different nature than originally proposed.
“Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third-party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs,” Judge Chutkan wrote in a short order on Oct. 31.
“At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing.” She has similarly rejected all other motions to file third-party briefs.
ACLU Defends Trump Speech
The ACLU had on Oct. 25 stated that the judge’s order was both “vague” and “impermissibly broad,” similar to arguments that Trump attorneys have made as they appeal the gag order.
While the special counsel’s office originally sought to prohibit President Trump from making statements about Washington, his belief that the prosecution is politically motivated, and remarks related to the case that are “inflammatory” or “disparaging,” the judge took a different route.
Judge Chutkan prohibited statements that “target” the prosecution and defense legal teams, court staff, and potential witnesses. In the opinion filed along with her order, she did not elaborate on what “target” meant.
She did specify that the order did not strip First Amendment rights entirely because President Trump could still criticize President Joe Biden, who is his chief political rival in the polls, as well as the government in general.
By Catherine Yang
