XPost: law.court.federal, alt.politics.republicans, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics, alt.politics.usa.constitution

In article <ui3jkh$2tt69$1@dont-email.me>
<wimp@protonmail.com> wrote:

An appeals court Friday ordered an administrative stay of a gag
order barring former President Trump from targeting witnesses and
the prosecutors in his federal election interference case,
temporarily pausing its implementation ahead of further legal
battles.

The order from the D.C. Circuit court of appeals also expedites the
case.

The decision tees up a similar legal battle already litigated in a
lower court, where Judge Tanya Chutkan determined the threats and
harassment resulting from Trump’s social media taunts posed danger
to the case and his subjects, barring him from speech that would
“target” those involved in the case.

Like the appeals court, she agreed to an administrative stay of her
order after Trump appealed her decision, ultimately siding with the
Justice Department on Sunday that the gag order should remain in
place while Trump continues the battle to have her division
overturned.

A three-judge panel on the appeals court gave Trump’s team until
Tuesday to make their case why Chutkan’s gag order should remain on
ice throughout the course of his appeal.

Trump’s team has argued Chutkan’s order is a violation of his First Amendment rights — one that could hamper his electoral prospects.

“As the court has explained, the First Amendment rights of
participants in criminal proceedings must yield, when necessary, to
the orderly administration of justice — a principle reflected in
Supreme Court precedent,” Chutkan wrote in the order.

“And contrary to Defendant’s argument, the right to a fair trial is
not his alone, but belongs also to the government and the public.”

Chutkan went on to note the threats faced by those Trump targets,
writing that Trump’s attorneys “never disputed” that his remarks
could endanger those he singles out.

“The evidence is in the record; Defendant simply fails to
acknowledge it,” she wrote.

Trump’s legal team has also argued Chutkan’s order was too vague,
leaving lines blurred between what would be permissible criticism of
the case and its witnesses.

In response, Chutkan parsed statements Trump made both under the
order and when briefly relieved from it.

The statements “demonstrate that far from being arbitrary or
standardless, the Order’s prohibition on ‘targeting’ statements can
be straightforwardly understood and applied,” she said.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4292877-appeals-court- trump-gag-order-election-interference/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)