Quick Hit:

A coalition of 24 Republican state attorneys general has filed an amicus brief against Special Counsel Jack Smith's gag order on Trump, calling it "presumptively unconstitutional."

Key Details:

• The attorneys general argue the gag order infringes on free speech, crucial for fair elections.
• The brief emphasizes the First Amendment’s protection of political speech.
• The motion criticizes the Justice Department’s attempt to restrict Trump’s speech during an election period.

Diving Deeper:

In a significant legal move, 24 Republican state attorneys general have filed an amicus brief in former President Donald Trump's classified documents case, urging a Florida court to reject Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for a gag order. The attorneys general argue that the gag order is "presumptively unconstitutional" and impinges on fundamental First Amendment rights.

Led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, the group emphasizes that free and fair elections depend on candidates being able to speak freely about important issues. “Attempts to stop a candidate from speaking out harm more than just the candidate. They also hurt the voters, who are denied access to crucial information, and the States, which are responsible for managing elections,” the brief stated.

The request from Special Counsel Smith, filed last month, sought to prohibit Trump from making statements that could pose "a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of this case." This followed Trump’s claims that FBI agents were "locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger." Prosecutors argued that Trump's remarks were "grossly misleading" and referred to standard FBI protocols.

The attorneys general counter that Smith’s motion asks the court “to curtail that right by ordering a prior restraint on President Trump’s constitutionally protected speech. Such an order is presumptively unconstitutional.” They assert that preventing Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, from speaking about his prosecution would undermine the electoral process.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody highlighted the political implications, stating, "Once again, we are witnessing a prosecutor seek to keep the presumptive Republican nominee for President from speaking in the midst of an election. The First Amendment, at its core, is designed to protect political speech, and I along with my colleagues will not stand idly by and watch the Biden administration trample the free speech of a Florida citizen."

Bird was joined by attorneys general from Florida, West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

In their brief, the attorneys general conceded that there might be circumstances where a gag order could be justified, but argued that the facts of this case do not meet that threshold. They emphasized the importance of allowing political candidates to speak freely, particularly when their speech relates to their defense and the election.

The ongoing legal battle underscores the broader tensions between the Biden administration and Trump’s camp, with significant implications for the 2024 presidential race. As the case proceeds, the balance between protecting the integrity of legal proceedings and upholding free speech rights remains a contentious issue.