A nonprofit group of attorneys and strategists, some of whom formerly worked in Donald Trump’s administration, has filed a legal brief challenging a potential federal gag order against the ex-president in his classified documents case.
The amicus brief submitted to the Southern District of Florida on Thursday by America First Legal (AFL), composed of people including Stephen Miller, Trump’s former senior adviser and AFL president, and former U.S. Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker aims “to defend President Donald J. Trump’s constitutionally protected right to free speech and prevent Special Counsel Jack Smith from obtaining an unlawful gag order.”
Smith has accused Trump of hoarding documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort home in Palm Beach, Florida, after his presidency. He has also charged Trump with obstructing attempts by federal officials to retrieve the highly sensitive documents.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
“Jack Smith and the Biden Department of Justice are engaged in an unprecedented attack on essential freedoms in the United States,” Gene Hamilton, AFL executive director, said in a statement. “Their desire to engage in court-sanctioned censorship of Donald Trump is dangerous and inconsistent with the history of the First Amendment—and sadly consistent with the Biden Administration’s broader campaign of destruction of the right to speak freely in the United States.
“There is no evidence that President Trump has sought to hamper the impartiality of the jury or incite violence. He is a political candidate whose rights to speak and protest are especially acute given his belief he is the target of a politicized prosecution.”
Newsweek reached out to AFL and Department of Justice via email for comment.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over the case and has been accused of being too favorable toward Trump and his legal counsel and harsher toward Smith, on Monday rejected a motion from 24 Republican attorneys general nationwide that sought to have the court avoid granting Smith a gag order against Trump.
The filing, made with the Stone Hilton law firm in Austin, Texas, addresses the issue on the grounds of the First Amendment and how the framers of the Constitution viewed free speech—warning that the government’s attempt to “gag” Trump’s speech “should be undertaken with great caution and with particular attention to the Framers’ and the Supreme Court’s disdain for trampling crucial First Amendment rights.”
They argue that barring Trump from speaking about a case that affects him personally and politically, as he is the presumptive Republican nominee for president, stifles the entire U.S. political system.
“The government offers no evidence of the type of extreme disruption that could meet the statutory standard for gagging a defendant before trial,” the filing said. “It necessarily cannot meet the extremely high constitutional standard for prior restraints of President Trump’s speech.
“The attempt to do so—months before President Trump stands for election against the President whose Attorney General appointed the special prosecutor—is especially troubling.”
The AFL also invoked the Founding Fathers and their preservation of public debate in the realm of politics and government, saying in part that such “principles layer together to strongly shield candidates for national office from restrictions on their speech.”
Also noted are “constitutional restrictions on prior restraints” in terms of imposing infringements on Trump’s freedom of speech, adding that the former president’s statements and rhetoric do not meet standards of “incitement of violence” as purported by the prosecution.
A spokesperson for Stone Hilton, a boutique firm well connected to Texas and federal Republicans that describes itself as “institutionally right-wing,” told Newsweek via email on Friday that their involvement in the case is the fourth time it has filed in partnership with the AFL in support of Trump.
“We genuinely believe that the special counsel’s proposed order is a flagrant First Amendment violation and that even beyond that, it is obviously designed to interpose the criminal process between the leading candidate for President and the American people,” the spokesperson said.
“Voters deserve to hear from their presidential candidates, and the court’s order does not meet the very high bar for limiting President Trump’s constitutional right to free speech.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Elaine Hadley is a dedicated journalist covering the ever-evolving landscape of U.S. news. With a keen interest in politics and a commitment to uncovering the truth, she provides insightful commentary and in-depth analysis on domestic issues. When not reporting, Elaine enjoys exploring the diverse cultures and landscapes of the United States.
