THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Jun 24, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support for Fantasy Sports and Betting Enthusiasts.
back  
topic
Ashley Oliver, Justice Department Reporter


NextImg:Trump gag order reinstated on narrower terms, allows speech about Jack Smith

An appeals court on Friday reinstated a gag order restricting former President Donald Trump's speech about the federal election subversion case against him in Washington, D.C., but the court narrowed the scope of the order over First Amendment concerns.

Trump can, according to the new order, speak freely about special counsel Jack Smith, the lead prosecutor in the case who has brought charges against Trump over allegations he illegally attempted to overturn the 2020 election.

HUNTER BIDEN INDICTED ON CRIMINAL TAX CHARGES IN CALIFORNIA

Trump cannot, however, make public comments about witnesses in the case when the remarks relate to court proceedings and the investigation into Trump.

The former president also cannot speak publicly about lawyers in the case, court staff, or family members of the lawyers or staff "if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with" the case.

The decision, made by a panel comprising three Democrat-appointed judges, leaves most of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's original order in tact. Chutkan first issued the gag order in October but temporarily paused it while the court considered Trump's appeal to have it lifted.

Judge Patricia Millet of the appeals court detailed in an opinion accompanying the order how the panel weighed Trump's right to free speech against the need for a fair trial.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"We hold that the district court had the authority to restrain those aspects of Mr. Trump’s speech that present a significant and imminent risk to the fair and orderly administration of justice, and that no less restrictive alternatives would adequately address that risk," Millet wrote. "We also hold that the district court’s Order was not narrowly tailored and modify its scope to bring it within constitutional bounds."

This story is developing.