Current:Home > ContactProposed protective order would infringe on Trump's free speech, his lawyers say -MarketStream
Proposed protective order would infringe on Trump's free speech, his lawyers say
Fastexy Exchange View
Date:2025-04-08 21:43:18
Former President Donald Trump's legal team says that a protective order proposed by special counsel Jack Smith would infringe on Trump's right to free speech.
Trump's attorneys made the argument in their response Monday to the special counsel's motion for a protective order over the discovery evidence in the case against Trump for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors" targeting several states; using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations"; and trying to enlist the vice president to "alter the election results" -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
MORE: Special counsel alerts court to Trump’s social media post
The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has dismissed the probe as politically motivated.
Monday's filing argues for narrower limits on the protective order, which Trump's attorneys say would protect sensitive materials while ensuring Trump's right to free speech.
"In a trial about First Amendment rights, the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights," Trump's attorneys wrote in their filing. "Worse, it does so against its administration's primary political opponent, during an election season in which the administration, prominent party members, and media allies have campaigned on the indictment and proliferated its false allegations."
Smith's indictment against Trump, unsealed last week, disputes that he is being charged for exercising his First Amendment rights, instead alleging that he perpetrated three criminal conspiracies as "unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results."
Smith asked the judge for the protective order on Friday, referencing a social media post Trump made Friday afternoon in which he said, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"
In a statement issued after Smith's filing on Friday, the Trump campaign said the post was aimed at political interest groups.
"The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech," a Trump spokesperson said in a statement.
The proposed protective order submitted by Smith does not seek to bar Trump from commenting on the case in its entirety, but would restrict Trump and his attorneys from disclosing evidence such as materials returned from grand jury subpoenas and testimony from witnesses and other exhibits shown to the grand jury. It does not limit Trump from discussing materials that were already available to the public separate from the government's investigation.
Smith's attorneys have said the proposed order is largely modeled after similar protective orders issued in other cases.
But in their filing on Monday, Trump's attorneys accuse Smith's team of asking Judge Tanya Chutkan to "assume the role of censor and impose content-based regulations on President Trump's political speech that would forbid him from publicly discussing or disclosing all non-public documents produced by the government, including both purportedly sensitive materials, and non-sensitive, potentially exculpatory documents."
MORE: Judge in Trump's Jan. 6 case gives attorneys 2 weeks to propose trial date
Trump "does not contest the government's claimed interest in restricting some of the documents it must produce" such as grand jury related materials -- but "the need to protect that information does not require a blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government," the filing says.
Judge Chutkan said in an order on Saturday that she would "determine whether to schedule a hearing to discuss the proposed protective order after reviewing Defendant's response."
veryGood! (655)
Related
- Selena Gomez engaged to Benny Blanco after 1 year together: 'Forever begins now'
- Chick-fil-A to build new restaurant concepts in Atlanta and New York City
- Boy George and Culture Club, Howard Jones, Berlin romp through '80s classics on summer tour
- Fabricated data in research about honesty. You can't make this stuff up. Or, can you?
- American news website Axios laying off dozens of employees
- Last of nearly 100 pilot whales stranded on Australia beach are euthanized after getting rescued – then re-stranded
- Actors take to the internet to show their residual checks, with some in the negative
- Shooting wounds 5 people in Michigan with 2 victims in critical condition, police say
- Olympic disqualification of gold medal hopeful exposes 'dark side' of women's wrestling
- Nightengale's Notebook: Cardinals in a new 'awful' position as MLB trade deadline sellers
Ranking
- Paula Abdul settles lawsuit with former 'So You Think You Can Dance' co
- LeBron James' son is released from hospital days after suffering a cardiac arrest
- How Motherhood Taught Kylie Jenner to Rethink Plastic Surgery and Beauty Standards
- This Pet Stain & Odor Remover is an Amazon Favorite with 74,900+ 5-Star Reviews
- US wholesale inflation accelerated in November in sign that some price pressures remain elevated
- Peanuts for infants, poopy beaches and summer pet safety in our news roundup
- Apple AirTags are the lowest price we've ever seen at Amazon right now
- Why JoJo Siwa No Longer Regrets Calling Out Candace Cameron Bure
Recommendation
Buckingham Palace staff under investigation for 'bar brawl'
Climate Litigation Has Exploded, but Is it Making a Difference?
Sinéad O'Connor's death not being treated as suspicious, police say
PCE inflation measure watched by Fed falls to lowest level in more than 2 years
'As foretold in the prophecy': Elon Musk and internet react as Tesla stock hits $420 all
As these farmworkers' children seek a different future, who will pick the crops?
Chris Buescher wins at Richmond to become 12th driver to earn spot in NASCAR Cup playoffs
The One-Mile Rule: Texas’ Unwritten and Arbitrary Policy Protects Big Polluters from Citizen Complaints