Supreme Court Again Declines to Lift Gag Orders on Trump Over Business Records Case

A podcaster argued the orders violated his First Amendment right to gather news.

(Left) Judge Juan M. Merchan on March 14, 2024. (Right) Former President Donald Trump on April 26, 2024. Seth Wenig/AP Photo; Dave Sanders/via Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 16 denied a podcaster’s emergency request to lift the gag orders against President-elect Donald Trump related to his business records criminal trial in New York.

Previously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the application in Nieman v. Merchan on Oct. 21.

Applicant Joseph Nieman, founder of the “Good Lawgic” podcast on YouTube, then directed the emergency application on Nov. 20 to Justice Clarence Thomas, who referred the case to the full court, which rejected the application.

The rejection took the form of an unsigned order in which the court did not explain its decision. No justices dissented.

The respondent in the application is Juan Merchan, a judge of the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan who filed the gag orders earlier this year. The judge initially prohibited Trump from making public comments about the prosecution team, court staffers, or their families, including Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, a political consultant who previously worked for Vice President Kamala Harris.

Loren Merchan is president of Authentic Campaigns, which also represented newly elected Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Schiff was the lead impeachment manager in Trump’s second impeachment trial.

After the trial in May, Merchan allowed Trump to make comments about jurors and witnesses.

On May 30, a state jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made during the 2016 election. The 2024 presidential candidate denied any wrongdoing and entered not guilty pleas in the case. Sentencing has been delayed.

In August, an appeals court upheld Merchan’s gag orders by denying Trump’s request to remove the speech restrictions after his attorneys had argued that he was unfairly being silenced while Harris, who was his election opponent, and President Joe Biden were free to comment on the case.

In his application, Nierman argued that his constitutional rights as a member of the media were violated by Merchan’s various gag orders.

Nierman said he approached Trump for comment “about potential bias in his criminal trial” and Trump “declined comment,” citing the gag orders.

The gag orders “were wrongful” and served as an “impediment to [Nierman’s] newsgathering,” Nierman argued.

“There is a heavy presumption that a prior-restraint on free speech is not constitutional,” he added.

Nierman’s company, Good Lawgic LLC, also filed an emergency application to lift the gag order on Oct. 1. Sotomayor denied that application on Oct. 8. The application was refiled with Justice Samuel Alito on Oct. 8, who referred the matter to the full court. The full court denied the application on Dec. 9.

Jack Phillips contributed to this report.