Lawyers Seek Supreme Court Intervention to Lift Gag Order on Trump in Election Case
Motion to ungag President Trump has been referred to the entire SCOTUS for review. Read the full motion below.
Location: Washington, D.C.
A legal team has taken their challenge of a gag order imposed on President Donald J. Trump by New York Judge Juan Merchan to the Supreme Court for the second time. Initially, the application to stay the gag order was denied by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, but with new developments in the case, Trump's attorneys are seeking another review.
The gag order stems from a New York criminal case where Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments. The order restricts Trump from making public statements about certain participants in the case, which his legal team argues has prevented him from discussing alleged conflicts of interest involving Judge Merchan's family members.
Here are the scenarios outlined by the legal team regarding the potential outcomes:
Gag Order Lifted by SCOTUS: If the Supreme Court grants the motion, Trump would be free to speak publicly about the case, including any perceived biases or conflicts due to Judge Merchan's family ties.
Motion Denied: The Supreme Court could choose to uphold the gag order, leaving restrictions in place on Trump's public statements about the case.
Case Dismissed on Immunity Grounds: Judge Merchan is set to decide next week if Trump was entitled to presidential immunity, which could potentially nullify the case. If this happens before the Supreme Court rules, the high court might consider the issue moot.
Gag Order Lifted and Convictions Vacated: Though deemed the least likely by Trump's attorneys, the Supreme Court could both lift the gag order and overturn the convictions, arguing that Trump was denied a fair trial.
The legal proceedings continue to unfold as the nation watches, with significant implications for Trump, who has now been elected, and for the broader discourse on the limits of judicial gag orders on political figures. The outcome of this Supreme Court review could set a precedent for how former or current presidents are treated in legal proceedings concerning their public speech. Download the filing here.
Is the Supreme Court staff illegally preventing cases from going to the court?
Note: If Substack offers a free month of my blog, please sign up for it and cancel after a month. Substack will cover the cost and it’ll help me create more content. Thanks!!
All bs! she got her money! screwing a whore is not illegal.