A federal appeals court scrutinized a gag order in the election subversion case against Donald Trump during high-stakes oral arguments Monday in Washington, D.C., raising questions about how to balance the former president’s First Amendment rights with the need for a fair trial.
The court’s panel, comprising three judges, Obama appointees Patricia Millett and Nina Pillard and Biden appointee Bradley Garcia, grilled attorneys for Trump and special counsel Jack Smith on how the gag order would protect both Trump’s right to free speech and the integrity of the court.
MYSTERIOUS RESPIRATORY ILLNESS IN DOGS: WHAT TO KNOW BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS
The oral arguments featured three key points of concern.
Judges observed that John Sauer, the attorney appearing on behalf of Trump, disputed that there was virtually any scenario under which a gag order would be necessary. They, by contrast,…
