On Friday afternoon, the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court issued a ruling that pared back the excesses of the protective gag order issued in the district court by Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan at the request of special counsel Jack Smith. I previously criticized Smith’s effort to muzzle Trump, and National Review editorialized against the resulting order by Judge Chutkan. The D.C. Circuit’s opinion, written by Judge Patricia Millett (an Obama appointee) and joined by judges Cornelia Pillard (an Obama appointee) and Bradley Garcia (a Biden appointee) is, unsurprisingly, not sympathetic to Trump. But it strikes a much more serious balance between the needs of the criminal process and the needs of the political process.
Judge Chutkan ordered that “all interested parties in this matter . . . are prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.” But the court allowed “statements criticizing the government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice; statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of Defendant’s current political rivals,” as well as allowing criticism of the judge herself.
Comments