The speech ban on former President Donald Trump has been reinstated in the federal case linked to his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results after an appeals court rejected his motion to dismiss it on Friday – but the judges narrowed the scope of the ban against him after stating during the hearing that they did not wish to “distort the political landscape” by completely banning his speech.
Key Facts
In October, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed a ban on Trump preventing him and other parties from commenting that “target” special counsel Jack Smith or his staff, defense attorneys and their staff, court personnel, or “any reasonably foreseeable witness or someone who is expected to testify.” Trump challenged this decision, and a panel of three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the speech ban but in a narrower form, restricting Trump and other parties and attorneys in the case from making public statements about potential witnesses that “concern their potential involvement in the investigation or this criminal proceeding” – meaning Trump can still make public comments attacking witnesses as long as they do not relate to this specific case.
What to Watch For
The federal election case against Trump is set to go to trial on March 4, 2024. The former president faces four criminal charges in the case related to conspiracy and alleged obstruction, which could result in a sentence of up to 55 years in prison if convicted on all counts and the maximum sentence is imposed (an unlikely scenario). The charges against Trump have been challenged, and he has filed a motion to dismiss the charges asserting that he is entitled to “presidential immunity” and that his efforts to overturn the election were part of his official duties as president. Chutkan denied this motion – asserting that Trump’s time in the White House did not grant him “the divine right of kings to avoid criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens” – and Trump has appealed her decision, asking the appeals court to dismiss the case. The former president also requested to stay the court proceedings until the appeals court makes its decision, which could delay the timeline for his trial.
What We Don’t Know
Trump’s attorneys suggested in a previous filing to the appeals court that they might take their dispute over the speech ban to the Supreme Court if the appeals court reinstated it, although it is not yet clear if they will do so. The speech ban issued by Chutkan does not outline the penalties Trump could face if he violates the order, stating only that “the court will evaluate the content and context” of any statements before determining whether he violates the order. A separate speech ban was also imposed on Trump in the context of his civil fraud trial in New York – where the appeals court also temporarily imposed the ban and then reinstated it – which prohibits public statements about court personnel. Judge Arthur Engoron has already imposed a combined fine of $15,000 on Trump for two violations of this order, threatening that other penalties for further violations could result in much larger fines and sanctions for contempt or potential jail time.
Background
Trump has frequently attacked his critics on social media as legal challenges against him have increased, targeting prosecutors, potential witnesses, and judges in the four criminal cases against him and his civil trials. In the federal election case, prosecutors cited such comments to justify the speech ban as Trump referred to Smith as a “thug” and suggested that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley should be executed, saying after he was indicted, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” While the question of whether a speech ban would be imposed on Trump has been speculated upon since his first indictment in March, Engoron was the first to impose a speech ban on Trump (and other parties in the case) in October, followed by Chutkan, who became the first judge to impose a speech ban in one of Trump’s criminal cases. The federal judge ruled in October that his statements about parties in the case made them “targets of threats and harassment” and “pose serious threats enough to the safety of these proceedings that cannot be addressed through alternative means.”
Source:
Leave a Reply