The Daily Fuckup

A federal appeals panel heard arguments on Nov. 20, 2023, over whether the gag order in Donald Trump’s election-interference case should stay in place as written, be narrowed, or be changed in some other way. The hearing before the D.C. Circuit focused on a basic question with immediate consequences: how much the court can restrict a former president and active candidate from attacking people connected to the case while still leaving room for political speech.

At the time of the hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s order barred Trump from making certain attacks on prosecutors, court staff, and potential witnesses. The order still allowed him to say the case was politically motivated and to criticize President Joe Biden and the Justice Department. Judges on the appellate panel asked questions that suggested interest in whether the restriction was too broad, according to the arguments made that day, but the court did not issue a ruling on Nov. 20.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the order swept too far and risked limiting campaign speech during an election year. Government lawyers said the restriction was needed to protect the integrity of the case and reduce the risk that witnesses or court personnel could be pressured or targeted. The panel’s questions made clear that the judges were weighing those competing claims against each other, not deciding the case on the spot.

The hearing was one step in a larger fight over how far a trial judge can go to limit a defendant’s public comments. Chutkan had said the order was meant to prevent statements that could affect the case or the people working on it. Trump has argued that such limits amount to censorship, while prosecutors have said the court was trying to prevent statements that could interfere with the proceedings.

The appeals court later issued a ruling on Dec. 8, 2023, narrowing the gag order. But on Nov. 20, the record was still open, the arguments were still being made, and the panel was still testing where the line should be drawn.