In further developments today, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has upheld, with some modifications, the previous order issued by Judge Tanya Chutkan in October. This order restricted Donald Trump from making statements that could potentially intimidate witnesses in his election interference case. According to Above the Law, the appeals court agreed that Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked those involved in the case through threatening public statements.
The court’s order prevents Mr. Trump from making any “public statements” about “known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses” concerning their potential involvement in the ongoing investigation or criminal proceedings. However, it does allow him to express general criticism of potential witnesses.
The trial judge had initially imposed an order barring all parties, including Trump, from statements targeting witnesses, court staff, and attorneys in the case. John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, argued against this restriction insisting Trump had an absolute First Amendment right to criticize potential witnesses such as Mike Pence, Bill Barr, and Gen. Mark Milley, notwithstanding the court’s order. He claimed that this prohibition was a gross violation of the First Amendment, a position criticized by both the District and Circuit courts.
Importantly, the court held that the risk of potential witness intimidation is a valid ground for imposing restrictions on speech that has the potential to prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings. This principle is based on the key Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (501 U.S.C., 1991) case.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s criticism of Judge Chutkan’s order has continued unabated. Despite the upholding of the gag order by the Appeals Court, he complains about being barred from speaking the “truth”. Mr. Trump has made it known that he intends to appeal this decision.
Additionally, the court removed a previous ban on Mr. Trump’s criticism of the Special Counsel Jack Smith, acknowledging that, as a high-ranking government official, Smith is susceptible to lawful public criticism, much like the institution he represents.
You can find more detailed information regarding the case on District Docket via Court Listener
and Circuit Docket via Court Listener.