Trump Celebrates Gag Order By Attacking NY Judge's Family
Gag more, gag harder.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Yesterday Donald Trump got slapped with another gag order, which he once again celebrated with a sustained attack on the judge and his family. Stay classy!
Trump has a long history of directing his followers’ vitriol — and worse — at his enemies. His social media posts have endangered everyone from Atlanta poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, to Judge Tanya Chutkan, to former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers. Indeed, the District Attorney’s motion to restrict extrajudicial statements runs to 331 pages, most of which is exhibits documenting the terror and abuse experienced by everyone from jurors to court officials when Trump aims his rage cannon at them.
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
That’s why he’s already gotten himself gagged twice, in two separate courts.
The first gag was imposed by Justice Arthur Engoron in the civil fraud trial, after Trump attacked the judge’s law clerk, posting her photo on social media and falsely labeling her as Senator Chuck Schumer’s “girlfriend.” Trump howled about the gross violation of his First Amendment rights, and his lawyers appealed. But the First Judicial Department endorsed the order, and it remained in place throughout the trial.
The second ban came came courtesy of Judge Chutkan, who is presiding over the election interference case in DC. After sustained attacks on the prosecutors, court, and particularly the witnesses, the court imposed a limited gag, which was largely blessed by the DC Circuit.
And so Justice Juan Merchan had a pretty good idea that forbidding the defendant to attack witnesses, court staff, and line prosecutors was going to pass muster under New York law and the First Amendment. Indeed, the DA’s request largely mirrored the language in the DC order, with the minor addition of a ban on “making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.”
Sponsored
Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance
Trump’s argument here, as in the other cases, was to complain that banning him from endangering participants in the proceedings amounts to interference in his political campaign. And, as in the other cases, Justice Merchan was having none of it:
Defendant argues that, as the “presumptive Republican nominee and leading candidate in the 2024 election” he must have unfettered access to the voting public to respond to attacks from political opponents and to “criticize these public figures.” Yet these extrajudicial statements went far beyond defending himself against “attacks” by “public figures”. Indeed, his statements were threatening, inflammatory, denigrating, and the targets of his statements ranged from local and federal officials, court and court staff, prosecutors and staff assigned to the cases, and private individuals including grand jurors performing their civic duty. The consequences of those statements included not only fear on the part of the individual targeted, but also the assignment of increased security resources to investigate threats and protect the individuals and family members thereof. Such inflammatory extrajudicial statements undoubtedly risk impeding the orderly administration of this Court.
“[G]iven that the eve of trial is upon us, it is without question that the imminency of the risk of harm is now paramount,” the court concluded, imposing the order as requested.
Naturally Trump celebrated with a three-post bender on Truth Social, taking direct aim at Justice Merchan’s daughter.
Sponsored
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance
The rampage appears not to fall afoul of the gag order, which does not cover the judge and his family. Although it is an interesting strategy to antagonize the guy who could send you to jail, and who has already suggested that your lawyers have delayed the trial through an act of astonishing bad faith. But, once again, Trump appears to have decided that his short term political imperatives — or absolute lack of impulse control — is more important than a coherent legal plan. And indeed, Trump did exactly the same thing with Justice Engoron, immediately pivoting to spewing lies about the jurist’s wife and son when he was blocked from attacking the clerk.
Also yesterday, Justice Merchan also issued a scathing ruling affirming his March 8 order barring the parties from docketing any more motions without prior leave of the court. Trump’s lawyers largely ignored the prior ruling, while whining that it violated the Sixth Amendment.
The court noticed:
‘The Court’s Order of March 8 was issued at approximately 4:10pm. At 7:57pm that evening, Defendant filed what he characterized as a “pre-motion letter” seeking discovery sanctions. However, the “pre-motion letter” was accompanied by a notice of motion, a motion consisting of 51 pages and 214 pages in exhibits. In the cover e-mail, Defendant stated that they would “communicate with the People regarding redactions prior to filing.” In essence, Defendant disregarded this Court’s Order regarding the filing of motions. In response, this Court circulated an e-mail at 9:17pm reminding the parties of its earlier Order. This Court was well within its authority and demonstrated restraint in doing so.
Both times:
Despite the Court’s e-mail of March 8, two days later, on Sunday, March 10, 2024, between approximately 5:17pm and 5:22pm, Defendant filed three additional “pre-motion letters,” including the one that is the subject of this Decision and Order. In what appears to be an attempt to circumvent this Court’s Order and e-mail of March 8, Defendant this time did not “attach” a notice of motion, motion or exhibits. Instead, the motion and accompanying submissions were appended to the pre-motion letter as “exhibits.”
Justice Merchan concluded yesterday’s ruling by reminding counsel that “a court of record has power to punish for a criminal contempt, a person guilty of . . . [w]illful disobedience to its lawful mandate,” and adding that he “expects that the line between zealous advocacy and willful disregard of its orders will not be crossed.”
So this is all going swimmingly.
Jury selection begins on April 15. Godspeed.
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.
