ACLU Joins Donald Trump in Suit Against Judge’s Gag Order

The far-left American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief Tuesday in defense of Trump’s lawsuit against U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order against him for violating Donald Trump’s free speech rights.

It’s nice to know the ACLU believes in one thing that aligns with American principles.

The legal brief filed by the ACLU stated that Chukan’s order prevents Trump from making 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.”

The ACLU admonished Trump’s past statements as “patently false and has caused great harm to countless individuals, as well as to the Republic itself,” that “The entire order hinges on the meaning of the word “target.” But that meaning is ambiguous and fails to provide the fair warning that the Constitution demands, especially when, as here, it concerns a prior restraint on speech.”

“Reading the order, Defendant cannot possibly know what he is permitted to say, and what he is not. “Target” is an inherently vague term.”

They declared the order was too vague and ambiguous.

They believe it will unfairly affect his run for the presidency.

The ACLU wrote, “There has been extensive public commentary by parties and non-parties alike about Defendant, this case, and the events that underlie it. And Defendant’s ability to speak publicly about the substance of the prosecution, even including potential witnesses and testimony, is in many ways inextricable from the 2024 presidential campaign in which he is a declared candidate. Defendant’s role in the events related to his obstruction of the peaceful transition of power are relevant not only to the proceedings in this Court but to the country’s decision about whether he deserves to be elected again.

The ACLU statement noted the Ford case and the defendant’s right to express outrage and defend himself against opponents.

The statement explained that the order was “overbroad and underexplained.”

PowerInbox