The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to lift the gag order preventing Donald Trump from making public statements about individuals involved in the New York criminal hush-money case. This case led to Trump’s conviction on 34 felony charges related to falsifying business records in connection with hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The Supreme Court’s decision came after an application to overturn the gag order was submitted. The request, initially denied by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was later refiled with Justice Clarence Thomas, who referred it to the full court. The court ultimately denied the application without comment or explanation.
The gag order was first imposed by Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan during Trump’s trial. The order barred Trump from making public statements about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, court staff, and their family members. The restrictions were a response to Trump’s public criticisms, including comments directed at Judge Merchan, his daughter, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Shortly after the initial order was issued, Trump continued to make statements on social media criticizing the judge’s family and the prosecution team. This led Bragg’s office to file a motion asking the court to clarify that the order also protected the family members of those involved in the case. In response, Merchan expanded the gag order to explicitly include family members of participants in the proceedings. This expansion aimed to prevent any attempts to intimidate or harass individuals connected to the trial.
Trump’s defense team objected to the broadened restrictions, arguing that the gag order infringed upon his First Amendment rights. Despite their objections, multiple courts upheld the gag order, citing the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process and ensure the safety of those involved. Courts repeatedly emphasized that the restrictions were narrowly tailored and justified by evidence of ongoing threats directed at Bragg’s staff and others connected to the case.
After Trump’s conviction in May, his legal team pursued a series of appeals to challenge the gag order. The New York Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division consistently rejected these efforts, finding that the restrictions were reasonable and did not violate Trump’s constitutional rights. The appellate court noted that the gag order was necessary to prevent interference with the fair administration of justice, particularly in light of credible threats to individuals associated with the case.
Trump and his supporters have argued that the gag order unfairly restricts his ability to speak freely, framing it as a violation of his First Amendment protections. However, courts have consistently ruled that the restrictions are justified under the circumstances, particularly given Trump’s history of targeting individuals through public statements and social media posts. The courts have maintained that safeguarding participants in the judicial process from harassment and threats is a legitimate and compelling interest.
In addition to the failed attempts to overturn the gag order in New York state courts, Trump’s allies sought relief at the federal level. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey previously filed a challenge to the gag order, which was also rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Despite Trump’s conviction on felony charges, Judge Merchan delayed sentencing following Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election. Trump’s legal team has since sought to have the case dismissed and the convictions vacated. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office has firmly opposed these efforts, maintaining that the convictions are valid and that Trump must be held accountable.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the latest bid to lift the gag order reinforces the judiciary’s position that protecting the integrity of the legal process takes precedence over Trump’s claims of free speech violations. While Trump and his supporters continue to decry the restrictions, the courts have repeatedly found them necessary to prevent intimidation and interference in the proceedings.
