Attorneys for former President Donald Trump are making a renewed effort to overturn a federal gag order, with a request for a rehearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday. The defense attorneys are challenging the appeals panel’s ruling on five counts, arguing that a new hearing is justified. They claim that the opinion to silence President Trump to protect trial participants from potential threats or harassment from unrelated third parties conflicts with other court decisions, including those of the Supreme Court and other Circuits.
The appeals panel has emphasized the need to balance First Amendment rights with the integrity of court proceedings, but the defense attorneys argue that the court did not achieve either. They maintain that the judges reinforced the gag order based on a third standard for which there is no authority. They also argue that the court failed to meet the standards set by the “clear and present danger” test established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Additionally, they question the court’s consideration of cases related to the freedom of speech for political candidates and the “heckler’s veto” theory, which they believe contradicts the Supreme Court’s incitement doctrine.
The defense attorneys also contest the lack of evidence linking President Trump’s speech to any intimidation of prosecutors, potential witnesses, or court staff in the federal case. Instead, they assert that the gag order imposed on President Trump in the New York Supreme Court during civil proceedings was erroneously cited as justification. They argue that the actions of anonymous third parties cannot be attributed to President Trump, despite the threats received by a judge and law clerk in the New York case.
Following a denial of the motion to dismiss the federal criminal case based on presidential immunity by Judge Tanya Chutkan, President Trump’s legal team brought the case to the appeals court. Prosecutors then sought an expedited process in the appellate court and an immediate review of presidential immunity by the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which were granted. President Trump’s team contends that the nature of the defense has been misrepresented in the Supreme Court petition filed by prosecutors, who are asking for a ruling on whether former presidents can be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office, a situation not protected by presidential immunity.
The defense attorneys assert that their appeal is arguing for the protection of presidents from prosecution for official acts of office in the investigation of alleged election fraud in this case. The federal criminal case has been put on hold in the district court, and prosecutors are pushing for a quick trial to maintain the scheduled March 4, 2024 trial date. This case is sure to continue generating significant attention as it moves through the legal process.
