In a significant development regarding the 2020 election interference case in Washington, D.C., a law professor at George Washington University has deemed former President Donald Trump's gag order unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily lifted the gag order on Friday, allowing the judges to review Trump's request for an extended pause on the restrictions while his appeals are pending.

Law professor Jonathan Turley, speaking on "The Ingraham Angle" with Laura Ingraham, expressed his belief that the gag order was "unconstitutional." Turley had previously criticized the order when it was first issued, stating that it was a "very odd concept" since the court had rushed the trial before Super Tuesday, preventing everyone except Trump from discussing the case during the election.

Trump's attorneys had already vehemently opposed the gag order, arguing that it infringed upon his First Amendment rights. They contended that no court in American history had imposed a gag order on a criminal defendant actively campaigning for public office, especially the leading candidate for President of the United States.

The gag order, which was initially imposed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on October 17, aimed to block Trump from making statements targeting Special Counsel Jack Smith, his staff, witnesses, and court personnel. However, Chutkan clarified that it did not prevent Trump from expressing general complaints about the case and asserting his claims of innocence, while also acknowledging that the case might be politically motivated.

Turley highlighted that Smith, the Special Counsel, had requested an expansion of the gag order in an "equally unconstitutional way," even drawing criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which traditionally opposes Trump. The ACLU labeled the expanded order as "flagrantly unconstitutional."

The central question now lies with the court of appeals as to the purpose of the gag order. Turley questioned why Trump is not only silenced as a leading candidate in the election but also unable to criticize his former opponent, Michael Pence, or the witnesses presenting evidence against him. He expressed concern that such limitations could pose challenges for scheduling and may lead the case to the Supreme Court.

The lifted gag order has sparked debates about the role of the criminal justice system and the potential weaponization of prosecutions, with millions perceiving a political agenda behind Trump's trials. Turley asserted that whether true or not, the timing of these trials before the election would undoubtedly generate significant publicity and sharp criticism.

It remains to be seen how the court of appeals will approach the issue, determining whether the gag order can withstand constitutional scrutiny. If the case were to reach the Supreme Court, it could further complicate the scheduling and scrutiny surrounding the proceedings.