Red states request court to end Jack Smith’s order preventing Trump from releasing Florida documents.

24 Republican state attorneys general have filed an amicus brief in former President Trump’s classified documents case, challenging special counsel Jack Smith’s gag order request as unconstitutional. The group argues that limiting a candidate’s ability to speak out on crucial issues not only harms the candidate but also deprives voters and impacts the electoral process.

The amicus brief, filed in the Southern District of Florida, emphasizes the importance of free and fair elections in the United States, highlighting the significance of candidates’ unrestricted speech. Led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, the group stresses the need for caution when abridging core political speech, particularly concerning presidential elections.

In response to Smith’s motion to gag Trump from making statements that allegedly endanger law enforcement agents, the AGs assert that such requests violate the First Amendment rights of political candidates. They argue that the special prosecutor’s actions do not reflect the necessary restraint and caution when restricting constitutionally protected speech.

Trump’s claims regarding FBI agents, as mentioned in Smith’s motion, were deemed “grossly misleading” by prosecutors. The AGs contend that the request for a prior restraint on Trump’s speech is unconstitutional and would prevent the Republican nominee from defending himself against prosecution led by his political opponent.

Attorneys general from various states, including Florida, West Virginia, Texas, and Wyoming, joined the amicus brief, denouncing the attempts to silence political speech during an election. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody expressed concerns over the Biden administration’s infringement on free speech rights, emphasizing the core purpose of the First Amendment to protect political discourse.

While acknowledging the rare instances where a gag order may be justified, the AGs argue that the circumstances in Trump’s case do not warrant such a drastic restriction on speech. They urge the court to consider the implications of curtailing a candidate’s ability to address issues central to an ongoing election.

Overall, the Republican state attorneys general advocate for upholding the principles of free speech and fair electoral processes, cautioning against unnecessary limitations on political discourse that could undermine the democratic fabric of the nation.