Republished with full copyright permissions from The San Francisco Press.

Today, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a significant ruling on the gag order imposed on Donald Trump in his election interference case. The order, initially set by Judge Tanya Chutkan, has now been pared back but ultimately affirmed, signaling a continued effort to restrict Trump’s targeting of witnesses and individuals involved in the case.

Challenging the previous order, Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, argued for his client’s absolute First Amendment right to attack potential witnesses, including key figures like Mike Pence, Bill Barr, and Gen. Mark Milley, as well as Special Counsel Jack Smith’s wife. However, the unanimous panel of judges, including Patricia Millet, Cornelia Pillard, and Brad Garcia, emphasized the precedent set in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, which established a bar for restricting speech that poses a “serious risk of prejudice to an ongoing judicial proceeding.”

The appeals court firmly rejected Trump’s argument, citing his history of making threatening public statements against those involved in the case. The judges emphasized that Trump’s repeated attacks and messaging directed at potential witnesses and their testimony reflect a clear intent, as evidenced by the subsequent threats and abuse faced by the targets.

Addressing the defense’s claims, the court refuted the notion that riling supporters to harass someone equates to a “classic heckler’s veto.” They clarified that the concern lies in the predictability of some of Trump’s followers acting in a menacing manner in response to his words, rather than the potential offense taken by hostile audiences.

Furthermore, the appeals court dismissed Trump’s assertion of an unlawful prior restraint in imposing the gag order, emphasizing the need to prevent witness intimidation and the disruption of the trial court’s functioning. While modifying the ban on “targeting” witnesses to restrict public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses, the court clarified that generalized criticism of potential witnesses cannot be barred.

The ruling also excluded the trial court’s ban on criticism of Special Counsel Jack Smith, citing his role as a high-ranking government official and emphasizing that governmental figures are not entitled to the same protection from lawful public criticism as the institutions they represent.

Reacting to the decision, Trump expressed his displeasure and intentions to appeal, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. However, his response was dismissed as a token whine aimed at his support base.