They Know It Was Unconstitutional: Turley On Trump’s Gag Order Ruling

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley made a shocking revelation following news that a federal appeals court put former President Donald Trump’s gag order on hold.

A federal appeals court, on Friday, temporarily paused Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order on President Trump to allow the court more time to consider Trump’s request for a longer freeze on the gag order. 

“The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” the appeals court wrote in its order.

Turley, however, believes that the appeals court issued the temporary stay on the gag order because it was unconstitutional to begin with. Turley, while speaking during an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, suggested that the higher court would have left the gag order in place while it reviewed Trump’s request if it thought the gag order was constitutional.

“They could have left it to continue, to continue while they reviewed it, but, they decided, perhaps in an abundance of caution to order this stoppage until they can give it a full review,” Turley said. “The reason I think this could be quite significant is because I think the order is unconstitutional. I said that when it was first issued. It’s a very odd concept of an order because the court here insisted on having this trial before the election, sort of shoehorned it in before Super Tuesday .And everyone in this election is going to be talking about these cases, except one person under this gag order. He can’t criticize the prosecutors, he can’t criticize witnesses, and special counsel Jack Smith just asked for this order to be expanded in an equally unconstitutional way. That has drawn the criticism even of the ACLU, which is a staunch critic of Donald Trump, but the ACLU has said look, this is flagrantly unconstitutional…. Usually when you have these gag orders, it’s to protect a jury pool so that they’re not influenced by all of the publicity that might be generated. Well, you know, that ship has sailed,” Turley said. “You just ordered a major trial before an election and so the question for the court of appeals is, what is the real purpose of this?”