Missouri AG Files Lawsuit to Overturn Trump’s Gag Order and Delay Sentencing

 Missouri AG Files Lawsuit to Overturn Trump’s Gag Order and Delay Sentencing


The Missouri attorney general filed a lawsuit Wednesday in an effort to overturn Donald Trump’s gag order in the hush money case and halt the impending sentencing scheduled for September. In the filing, far-right Attorney General Andrew Bailey asked for “modest relief: a stay of New York’s gag order and impending sentence against Donald J. Trump during the 2024 Presidential election season so Missourians can participate in the election free from New York’s exercise of coercive power limiting the ability of Trump to campaign.”

According to Bailey, the gag order—put in place to protect witnesses and jurors from Trump’s attacks and partially remaining until sentencing—blocks electors from fulfilling “their federal functions,” though he does not explain how the electors are being blocked. Bailey emphasizes the “considerable harms to voters and electors in Missouri.”

Lawyer Matt Margolis lamented on X, “We are really at the ‘f–k it, it could really work’ stage” of Trump’s cases. However, Georgetown law Professor Steve Vladeck dismissed Bailey’s claims, stating there is no way the Supreme Court would buy into Bailey’s “original” jurisdiction claim. “There’s a 0.0% chance even this Court goes along with this nonsense,” he wrote.

Vladeck’s confidence was quickly challenged. Comments to his tweet were filled with people expressing their fears that the Supreme Court might entertain Bailey’s request, given their recent ruling granting Trump partial presidential immunity. David Welker, a purported lawyer, noted the “absence of precedent regarding this sort of thing,” criticizing Vladeck’s certainty and accusing him of “going on vibes.”

Vladeck responded, acknowledging the public’s cynicism about the Court. “Dear people yelling at me for saying this has no chance: I understand that you’re cynical about the Court right now. So am I,” he confessed. “That doesn’t change the fact that this has no chance. Thomas and Alito will file their standard ‘original JX is mandatory’ dissent, and that’ll be that.”

Bailey’s lawsuit comes at a critical juncture as the 2024 presidential election season heats up. The gag order against Trump was initially imposed to safeguard the integrity of the trial process, ensuring that witnesses and jurors are protected from potential intimidation or influence.

The attempt to overturn the gag order and delay sentencing highlights the ongoing legal and political battles surrounding Trump as he campaigns for the presidency. The outcome of Bailey’s lawsuit could have significant implications for Trump’s ability to communicate freely during his campaign.

As the legal proceedings continue, the spotlight remains on the actions of state and federal courts and their interpretations of the law in relation to Trump’s unprecedented legal and political situation. The tension between protecting judicial processes and ensuring fair electoral participation will be a central issue in the coming months.

Related post