Supreme Court Reiterates Decision to Uphold Gag Orders on Trump in Business Records Case
On November 26, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a podcaster’s urgent request to remove the gag orders against President-elect Donald Trump concerning his business records criminal trial in New York.
Previously, on October 21, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dismissed the application in the case of Nierman v. Merchan.
Joseph Nieman, the founder of the YouTube podcast “Good Lawgic,” submitted an emergency application to Justice Clarence Thomas on November 20. Thomas subsequently referred the matter to the full court, which declined the application on November 26.
The respondent in this application is Juan Merchan, a New York Supreme Court judge in Manhattan, who issued the gag orders earlier this year. These orders initially barred Trump from publicly commenting on the prosecution team, court personnel, or their families, including Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, a political consultant formerly affiliated with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Loren Merchan is the president of Authentic Campaigns, which has also represented newly elected and sworn-in Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Schiff was the lead impeachment manager during Trump’s second impeachment trial.
Related Stories
Following the trial in May, Judge Merchan permitted Trump to speak about jurors and witnesses.
On May 30, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made during the 2016 election. The 2024 presidential candidate has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in the case. Sentencing has been postponed.
In August, an appeals court supported Merchan’s gag orders by rejecting Trump’s request to eliminate the speech limitations, after Trump’s lawyers contended that he was unjustly being silenced while Harris, his election rival, and President Joe Biden could freely comment on the matter.
Nieman approached Trump for comments “about possible bias in his criminal trial,” but Trump “declined to comment,” referencing the gag orders.
He contended that the gag orders were “wrongful” and posed an “impediment to [Nieman’s] newsgathering.”
“There exists a strong presumption that a prior restraint on free speech is unconstitutional,” he further asserted.
Jack Phillips contributed to this report.
