The judges wrestled with how to craft a gag order that doesn’t infringe on the former president’s free speech rights or prevent him from defending himself on the campaign trail.
In his decision, Judge David Friedman of the state’s intermediate appeals court cited constitutional concerns about restricting Trump’s free speech.
Trump’s lawyers say they will seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court denies his request, arguing that the gag order violates Trump’s First Amendment rights.
Trump’s lawyers are vowing to fight the order, setting up a legal battle over what restrictions can be placed on the speech of a defendant running for America’s highest public office.
The former president's attorneys argued the fine was unfair and unconstitutional, but Judge Arthur Engoron stood by his decision that Trump's remarks violated the narrow gag order.
The episodes raise questions about whether Trump can abide by court directives that are aimed at reining in his rhetoric while he campaigns to return to the White House.
The ruling gives Trump’s lawyers time to prove why the former president’s comments should not be restricted as the case heads toward trial.
On May 17th, court documents were unsealed showing that during the administration of former President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued Twitter a grand jury subpoena requesting the company to unmask an account critical of U.S. Representative Devin Nunes. The DOJ sought to obtain the identity of the individual operating the account known as @NunesAlt.