Why federal judge’s partial gag order against Trump is 'not unconstitutional': analysis

Judge Tanya Chutkan responded favorably to a request from Jack Smith when she imposed a partial gag order on former President Donald Trump in the special counsel's 2020 election interference case.

Trump and his allies are slamming the gag order as a violation of Trump's 1st Amendment rights. But MSNBC's Steve Benen, in a MaddowBlog opinion column published on October 17, lays out some reasons why Chutkan's ruling is perfectly constitutional.

"Not surprisingly, the frontrunner for the GOP's 2024 nomination was not pleased," Benen observes. "At a campaign event in Iowa, held just a few hours after the judge's order, Trump whined, 'I'll be the politician in history that runs with a gag order where I'm not allowed to criticize people. Can you imagine this?' He added, 'It's so unconstitutional.'"

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Benen continues, "The idea that the former president is now prohibited from 'criticizing people' is demonstrably false. In fact, the judge in the case seemed to anticipate Trump's inevitable complaints and took care to explain the situation."

Chutkan, Benen notes, emphatically stated, "Now, let me be clear: Mr. Trump may still vigorously seek public support as a presidential candidate, debate policies and people related to that candidacy, criticize the current administration, and assert his belief that this prosecution is politically motivated. But those critical 1st Amendment freedoms do not allow him to launch a pre-trial smear campaign against participating government staff, their families, and foreseeable witnesses. No other criminal defendant would be allowed to do so, and I am not going to allow it in this case."

READ MORE:How Jack Smith ordered Trump to 'put up or shut up': legal expert

Read Steve Benen's full MSNBC column at this link.