Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.
Donald Trump lost an appeal to lift a gag order in his criminal trial for business fraud, where he was convicted on 34 felony counts.
What’s the deal: Donald Trump sought to lift a gag order imposed during his criminal trial, aiming to regain the ability to publicly discuss aspects of the case, including comments that could affect prosecutors, court staff, and their families. He lost the appeal, with the New York State Court of Appeals ruling that the gag order should remain to protect the fair administration of justice and ensure the safety of those involved until his sentencing, which is now scheduled for September 18.
What the court said: In their ruling, the appeals court said, “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.”
What Judge Merchan previously did: Judge Juan Merchan partially lifted the gag order following Donald Trump’s criminal conviction, allowing him to speak about witnesses and jurors involved in the case. However, Merchan kept the rest of the gag order in place to protect the district attorney staff from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm.
Trump’s beef with Merchan: Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized Judge Juan Merchan, alleging bias and unfairness in the handling of his criminal trial for business fraud. Trump has extended these claims to Merchan’s daughter, accusing her of having connections to Democratic causes and arguing that this presents a “clear” conflict of interest. Despite these allegations, Judge Merchan has declined to recuse himself, asserting that these connections do not impact his impartiality in the case.
