In an unexpected twist, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has come to the defense of former President Donald Trump in a criminal case charging him with conspiracy to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.
The ACLU is arguing that the gag order imposed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is overly broad and infringes on Trump’s right to free speech.
During Trump’s tenure in the White House, the ACLU sued him and his administration on more than 400 occasions. However, in this particular case, the left-wing civil liberties group is taking a different stance, emphasizing the importance of protecting free speech rights for all individuals, even those with whom they disagree.
The limited gag order issued by Judge Chutkan prohibits Trump from making disagreeable remarks about special counsel Jack Smith, court employees, and potential witnesses involved in the federal election interference case against him in Washington, D.C. The judge’s decision was based on claims by left-wing agitators that criticism by Trump has led to “harassment” against individuals involved in the case.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the ACLU, they expressed concerns about the vague language used in the order, particularly the term “targeting.” They argue that it is unclear what actions constitute “targeting” and that it could range from mere identification to incitement of violence. The ACLU contends that restrictions on Trump’s remarks about the special counsel’s work risk stifling a necessary and vigorous debate about the performance of public officials.
While acknowledging the potential risk of Trump inspiring passion about the case among his supporters, the ACLU asserts that the First Amendment does not provide grounds for silencing him. They maintain that the fact others have made threats after hearing Trump’s words does not justify limiting his speech. However, the ACLU does advocate for prohibiting speech that threatens or incites violence against public officials.
Prosecutors and Trump’s defense team have clashed over the gag order, with his lawyers calling it an “unconstitutional prior restraint” and launching an appeal. The ongoing legal battle may delay the trial scheduled for March 2024.
