A temporary lifting of the gag order that prevented Donald Trump from commenting on court personnel in his New York civil fraud trial has been issued by an appellate judge, citing concerns about free speech. The gag order was imposed by trial judge Arthur Engoron after Trump made false comments about a law clerk on social media. The temporary stay allows Trump to freely comment about court staff and includes his lawyers.
Gag Order and Violations:
The gag order, imposed on October 3, was a response to Trump’s false comments about the judge’s law clerk during New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil fraud trial. Violations of the gag order led to fines, including a $15,000 penalty for Trump. The order was extended to include Trump’s lawyers after they questioned the law clerk’s role during the trial.
Appellate Judge’s Ruling:
Judge David Friedman issued a temporary stay, suspending the gag order, while a longer appeals process unfolds. Friedman expressed concerns about restricting free speech and questioned the trial judge’s authority to police Trump’s comments outside the courtroom. The ruling also allows Trump’s lawyers to comment about court staff.
Legal Challenge and Frustrations:
Trump’s legal team filed a lawsuit challenging the gag order under Article 78, a state law allowing lawsuits over certain judicial decisions. Frustrated with Judge Engoron’s handling of the trial, Trump and his lawyers have sought a mistrial, citing bias. They accuse the judge of being “extremely hostile” and have criticized the law clerk, alleging partisanship.
Public Statements and Safety Concerns:
While Trump and his lawyers have criticized the law clerk’s role, state lawyers argue that such comments have led to safety concerns for court staff. Engoron and his staff have reportedly received hundreds of threatening and antisemitic communications. The appellate judge’s decision raises questions about balancing free speech rights and the safety of court personnel.
Future Proceedings:
The lifting of the temporary stay allows Trump to freely discuss court staff until a more extended appeals process concludes. The legal challenges and controversies surrounding Trump’s New York fraud trial continue to unfold, with implications for the broader debate on the balance between free speech and judicial decorum.
COMMENTS