Missouri A.G. Sues New York for Dumbest Reason Ever

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit Wednesday against New York state alleging that the gag orders placed on Donald Trump during his hush-money trial constituted election interference.

The lawsuit alleged that Trump’s gag orders and impending sentencing, which was recently postponed to September, illegally interfered with elections in other states, violated the Purcell principle, and violated the First Amendment rights of the citizens of Missouri “to listen to the campaign speech of a specific individual on specific topics.”

In the filing, lawyers for Missouri argued that the gag orders placed on Trump should be removed, “so Missourians can participate in the election free from New York’s exercise of coercive power limiting the ability of the Trump campaign.” Bailey has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the dispute, and remove Trump’s gag order once and for all. 

It seems the specific topic the suit refers to is Trump’s opinions about New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, his staff, and his family members, whom Trump was barred from speaking about during his trial. He repeatedly railed against them online, stirring up a frenzy of right-wing hysteria over the supposedly rigged trial. Ultimately, the jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business documents.  

Ahead of his debate against President Joe Biden, the gag order on Trump was partially lifted, allowing him to make comments about witnesses and jurors who deliberated over the case. Merchan kept intact the part of the order that prevents him from publicly speaking about the lawyers and staff of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and their families. Trump is allowed to speak about District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump supporters remain enraged at the limitations. “New York is waging war on American Democracy—and Missouri will not let it stand,” Bailey wrote on X. “I will not sit idly by while Soros-backed prosecutors in New York hold Missouri voters hostage in this presidential election.” 

The Purcell principle is a uniquely open-ended doctrine that comes from the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez, which found that courts could not change election rules in the short period of time just before an election takes place, because it creates confusion among the electorate. Trump’s criminal trial for his hush-money scheme took place in May, six months before the polls open in November—so it’s not exactly clear how the gag order could constitute the kind of last-minute change to election rules prevented by Purcell.

While the math on this strategy might not quite work out, it’s on par with Bailey’s original plan to oppose Trump’s conviction on the basis that prosecutors had missed the statute of limitations—which of course, wasn’t the case at all. 

Bailey’s suit seeks a stay on Trump’s gag orders so the presumptive Republican nominee can continue to spew whatever attacks he sees fit against anyone he decides is an enemy. “This lawfare is poisonous to American democracy,” Bailey said in a statement. “The American people ought to be able to participate in a presidential election free from New York’s interference. Any gag order and sentence should be stayed until after the election.”

It’s not clear yet whether the highest court in the land will hear Bailey’s case.