A New York state appeals court on Tuesday denied former President Donald Trump's appeal of the gag order in his Manhattan criminal trial.
The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department ruled to uphold Judge Juan Merchan's March 26 gag order barring Trump from making public statements about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and jurors in the criminal trial.
Merchan expanded the gag order on April 1 when he declared his family off-limits after Trump assailed his daughter for ties to Democrat fundraising and saying the judge has a conflict of interest.
The appellate justices ruled the gag order does not violate Trump's First Amendment rights.
"We decline to exercise our discretion or to grant the relief that petitioner seeks here," the judges said in their ruling. "It is well established that 'although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment Rights at the courthouse door, those rights may be subordinated to other interests that arise in [the trial] setting.
"We find that Justice Merchan properly weighed petitioner's First Amendment Rights against the court's historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases, and the right of persons related or tangentially related to the criminal proceedings from being free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm."
The judges cited a Washington, D.C., federal appeals court in January denying Trump's request that it reconsider his gag order in the 2020 election interference case.
"In the Federal Restraining Order Decision, the circuit court weighed the three key questions bearing on the entry of a restraining order against a criminal defendant: '(1) whether the Order is justified by a sufficiently serious risk of prejudice to an ongoing judicial proceeding; (2) whether less restrictive alternatives would adequately address that risk; and (3) whether the Order is narrowly tailored, including whether the Order effectively addresses the potential prejudice' (id.)," the New York judges wrote. "The Federal Restraining Order is nearly identical to the Restraining Order issued against petitioner in the underlying criminal case."
"The Federal Restraining Order Decision properly found that the order was necessary under the circumstances, holding that 'Trump's documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process,' " the judges added.