The high court did not provide a reason, and there were no noted dissents.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 9 declined to weigh in on New York Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order for President-elect Donald Trump connected to his business records criminal trial.
Merchan had issued the gag order earlier this year, initially prohibiting Trump from commenting on the prosecution team, court staffers, or their families, including Merchan’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant who had once worked for Vice President Kamala Harris. After the May trial, Merchan lifted a previous ban on Trump’s commenting about witnesses and jurors.
He has always been free to speak about the judge and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat whose office prosecuted the case.
The Supreme Court, in a one-line order, wrote on Dec. 9 that the “application for stay addressed to Justice [Samuel] Alito referred to the Court is denied.” No reason was given, and there were no noted dissents.
On May 30, a jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection to payments his campaign made during the 2016 election. The president-elect has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in the case, which was brought by Bragg.
An appeals court in August upheld Merchan’s gag order by denying Trump’s bid to lift the restrictions after his lawyers had argued that he was unfairly being silenced while Harris and President Joe Biden were able to comment about the case.
During the trial, the judge held Trump in contempt of court and fined him $10,000 for violations, and the judge threatened to jail Trump if he committed further violations. In social media posts, Trump was critical of the order, suggesting that it was a form of election interference.
“I am not allowed to talk about the attacks against me, and the Lunatics trying to destroy my life and prevent me from winning the 2024 Presidential Election, which I am dominating?” he wrote in a Truth Social post in March.
A five-judge appeals panel found that Merchan was correct in keeping some restrictions in place until Trump is sentenced because the case is still pending and his conviction doesn’t constitute a change in circumstances that warrants lifting it.
“The fair administration of justice necessarily includes sentencing,” they wrote.
Merchan also rejected two prior recusal requests—last year and at the start of the trial in April—saying the defense’s concerns were “hypothetical” and based on “innuendos” and “unsupported speculation.”
In a letter to Merchan over the summer, Todd Blanche, a lawyer for Trump, said that when Harris entered into the presidential race, the judge had not addressed the issues that the defense pointed out “at a level of detail sufficient to repair the lack of public confidence in the integrity” of the proceedings.
Last month, the judge adjourned sentencing previously scheduled for Nov. 26 in the Trump criminal case. His lawyers filed a motion last week to again dismiss the criminal charges.
“Wrongly continuing proceedings in this failed lawfare case disrupts President Trump’s transition efforts and his preparations to wield the full Article II executive power authorized by the Constitution pursuant to the overwhelming national mandate granted to him by the American people,” his motion reads.
Aside from the New York case, Trump faced charges in Washington, Georgia’s Fulton County, and Florida.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office brought election-related charges against Trump in Washington before dropping the case last month. He moved to drop his appeal in a classified documents case in Florida at roughly the same time.
In Georgia, a separate election case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis against Trump and more than a dozen others has been at a standstill after Trump and several co-defendants appealed a judge’s ruling in March that allowed the district attorney to remain on the case.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.