Photo: ReutersNew York judge suspends gag order against Trump in fraud case, citing free speech
Judge Arthur Engoron latest to impose a gag order a month after the former president defamed a court clerk
A New York appeals court judge on Thursday suspended a gag order barring Donald Trump from commenting court officials during a civil fraud trial. Last month, a trial judge imposed a gag order and then fined Trump $15,000 for violations after the former president made a disparaging social media post about a court clerk.
In his decision, the state's intermediate appeals court judge, David Friedman, cited constitutional concerns about limiting Trump's free speech. He issued a stay of the gag order, allowing Trump to freely comment on court officials while the longer appeal process continues.
Trump's lawyers filed a lawsuit against trial judge Arthur Engoron late Wednesday challenging the gag order as an abuse of power. Friedman scheduled an emergency hearing for Thursday afternoon at a conference table in the state appeals courthouse a couple of miles from where the trial is unfolding.
Trump's lawyers asked an appellate judge to throw out the gag order and fines imposed by the trial judge after the former president and his lawyers argued the court reporter was exerting undue influence.
Trump and his lawyers repeatedly put clerk Allison Greenfield under a microscope during the trial. They argue that the former Democratic judicial nominee is a partisan voice in the eyes of Judge Engoron (even though he is also a Democrat) and that she is playing too large a role in the case involving the former Republican president.
Engoron responded by defending Greenfield's role in the courtroom, ordering litigants not to comment on court staff and fining Trump a total of $15,000 for what the judge deemed violations. Last week, Engoron barred lawyers in the case from commenting on “confidential communications” between him and his staff.
Trump's lawyers – who separately sought a mistrial on Wednesday – argue that the orders Engorona unconstitutionally suppress free speech, and not just any free speech.
“This constitutional protection is at its apogee when the speech in question is the main political speech made front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, regarding alleged partisanship and bias in court, where he faces hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and the threat of a ban on his lawful business activities in the state,” they wrote in the legal document. submission of documents.
Recent Comments