In 1987, Trump’s lawyers note, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit rejected a gag order imposed on Rep. Harold E. Ford Sr. (D–Tenn.), who was facing corruption charges. That order prohibited Ford from making any “extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication,” including any “opinion of or discussion of the evidence and facts in the investigation or case,” any statement about a prosecutor, any statement about “any alleged motive the government may have had in filing the indictment,” or any statement “which relates to any opinion as to…the merits of the case.”

The appeals court noted that “any restrictive order involving a prior restraint upon First Amendment freedoms is presumptively void and may be upheld only on the basis of a clear showing that an exercise of First Amendment rights will interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.” It concluded that the order against Ford “is clearly overbroad and fails to meet the clear and present danger standard in the context of a restraint on a defendant in a criminal trial.” …

In any case, the order against Ford was much broader than the one that Chutkan issued on Monday, and the language that the 6th Circuit approved more closely resembles the restrictions on Trump. The appeals court redefined the prohibited extrajudicial statements to include, among other things, attacks on the “character” or “reputation” of “potential witnesses” or any “attorney associated with the prosecution or defense.”

[As I have said, this will be more complicated than people think, and the Ford decision shows why. Even that is still controversial, so expect this to get to the Supreme Court at some point, probably sooner rather than later. — Ed]