I can’t speak about how US judges handle contempt, but my understanding in Canadian courts is that it’s a progressive discipline approach, with jail being the last resort.
It’s the same here. And of course, whether folks want to acknowledge it or not, this situation is different than the situation for we regular joes.
Chutkan will be very cautious with how she compiles this record. Everything she does with respect to how she restricts Trump’s speech will be subjected to appellate review. She must make sure her actions are appeal-proof.
Sometimes judges – especially judges in DC who particularly understand the implications of it – don’t want the SCOTUS to set new precedent, which any SCOTUS ruling in this case could be.
If she avoids stepping on the cracks and breaking John Roberts’ back, she will emerge with the rights of judges to control their own courtrooms intact. And that’s a pretty big deal if we are a nation that is truly founded on the rule of law.
This is why she’s being so careful.
Plus, it’s correct that this case is unprecedented. Trump is running for president and that means campaigning. Any judge in this bizarre situation needs to be careful to respect 1st Amendment rights, while protecting the power of the court to ensure a fair trial. And that means fair to everyone, the prosecution, Trump, the witnesses, and the public at large.
But isn’t that just Trump’s job, as opposed to a free pass? Again, if it was Velomont “that means logging onto my computer most mornings, having meetings with coworkers, and working on various documents”.
And sincerely, I’m asking because IANAL and I honestly don’t know if I’m just looking at stuff that “just feels right (or wrong as the case may be)” and that that stuff is actually inaccurate.
There are strands of 1st Amendment analysis that say that political expression is at the core of the 1st Amendment, and therefore triggers the strongest protection possible. I have some problems with that analysis, but it’s undeniably there. And, campaigning for the highest office in the land may itself strengthen the scope of the 1st amendment protection, in a way that everyday office activités and chatting with coworkers does not.
The importance of the 1st Amendment rights also has to be balanced against the role of the courts, enforcing the rule of law, which is an equally important value.
Put simply, I don’t envy the judge.
ETA: see this summary of Meiklejohn’s theory of the primacy of political speech for 1st Amendment analysis:
I’m just curious—what would be the basis for an appeal of a gag order, post-verdict? Is it to smack the judge and ensure such an “abuse” doesn’t happen again, or could it actually lead to a new trial?
I ask because I have difficulty understanding how an overly broad gag order (or a weekend in stir for Trump) would be a basis to argue a potentially improper verdict.
Nitpick: for us regular joes.
But totally redeemed by:
Good one! 
From my brief inquiry into “Suppression (a/k/a “Gag”) Orders” and the balance of trial integrity assurance and free speech – particularly when the order is against a party to the action …
It seems like the win for Chutkan, if we presume that Trump (Noun) can only Trump (verb), is to draw a line that errs to the side of free speech, while simultaneously betting that Trump will cross that line by a shockingly wide margin.
It has to survive a possible/probable appeal. That approach – the one I would argue she’s actually taking – seems, IMHO, the safest and the wisest.
It strays away from the perils of “entrapment” by setting out low expectations, probably avoiding a “too close to call” case if and when Trump blows up.
Well, that’s the problem. There isn’t one.
If Trump doesn’t appeal this issue pre-trial, he waives his right to bring it as an issue on appeal post-trial. Essentially – and this is a judge’s call, not mine, so this is my best understanding as a layperson – it renders the issue moot. The appellate court would basically respond, “If it was such a problem, why didn’t you raise it before the case went to trial?”
And you’re right, one thing (a judicial ruling on an overly-broad gag order) has nothing to do with a potentially improper verdict. That’s why Trump is appealing Judge Chutkan’s gag order ruling now.
Got it. Thanks!
He’s already said that he’s going to appeal it. The usual qualifier applies: there’s a stark disconnect between what he says and what he does:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4259173-trump-appeal-gag-order/
I know. 
Which is why I said:
If I live long enough, I promise to read future posts in their entirety 
LOL, I have made the error myself a few times and gotten caught out. Especially when a thread is flying. I do understand!
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
IANAL, but what about this argument?
- Trump is campaigning for president.
- Campaigning is about promoting your brand.
- Trump’s brand is – just hear me out – that of someone who fights tooth and claw in defense of himself and other true patriots.
- Therefore, his social posts criticizing any aspect of any of his trials are actually campaign speech.
- Campaign speech is political speech that’s protected by the First Amendment.
- Therefore, he can’t be held in contempt because all he’s doing is exercising his right to political speech.
I bet his lawyers use some version of this at some point. How ludicrous is it?
Quite ludicrous because Trump is a defendant in a felony case and has limited 1st amendments rights based upon him being on pre-trial release. Running for POTUS doesn’t give him extra rights, the judge made that very clear yesterday. The defense was told to stop beating this dead horse in the courtroom, which is where it actually matters. That and to stop intimidating witnesses and threatening court personnel, nothing that has anything to do with his campaign.
If he actually followed the gag order then maybe he would have to campaign on issues, which is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen.
I think that’s exactly what the argument of Trump’s attorneys would look like.
But there are quite a few cases that talk about how to strike that balance (ie, between free speech and ensuring the integrity of the process) – very few are on point, particularly when a legit candidate for the highest office in the land is involved.
This is one of many that could find its way to the Supreme Court, and one of many where I truly have no idea how they’d rule.
But my sense is that their general predisposition to protect Trump at all costs (see: Aileen Cannon) is dramatically overrated.
A narrow gag order allows him no end of free speech and campaigning latitude. She seemed careful to explicitly point that out, even “allowing” (IIRC) him to smear the Justice Department, her and both the District of Columbia and its residents.
That’s really giving an idiot all the rope he needs to hang himself. Now, it’s up to Trump
I think she threaded the needle beautifully.
FYI (I didn’t check, but don’t recall it being contributed) …
The Order including the gag (3pp PDF).
Something to remember is that the people who are going to decide the validity of this gag order on appeal are themselves judges who could very well find themselves in a similar situation down the line, and so don’t want to set a precedent that allows anyone running for office to threaten them and their staff with impunity. So they might be well disposed to letting any order by Judge Chutkan stand for reasons of professional courtesy and self preservation.