Trump's Hush Money Trial Gag Order Left In Place By New York's Highest Court
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
New York state’s highest court declined to take up an appeal regarding former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial gag order, leaving it in place for now.
Judge Juan Merchan handed down the gag order earlier this year to prevent Trump from attacking witnesses, attorneys and others involved in his criminal trial, actions that could amount to an effort to influence the proceedings.
A jury of 12 Manhattanites found the former president guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree on May 30.
Trump is expected to appear for a sentencing hearing July 11 — just a few days before he is expected to accept the Republican Party’s presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention.
He could potentially be imprisoned or put on probation.
The trial revolved around a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels that Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen made in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Daniels says she once had a sexual encounter with Trump, which he denies. However, even the accusation would have been damaging to his campaign at the time.
Over the seven weeks of the trial, Trump was found to have breached his gag order 10 times, resulting in a $10,000 fine — $1,000 for each infraction. Merchan warned Trump that further violations would force him to consider jail time, although the judge expressed apprehension about doing so.
Trump’s attorneys argued that the gag order presented “substantial constitutional questions” regarding his First Amendment right to speech. But the appeals court disagreed, declining to take up the issue “upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.”
Trump was not barred from attacking Merchan, and he has done so — repeatedly — on his Truth Social platform and in various speeches by claiming the judge was woefully biased against him.
