June 13, 2026 12:13 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Mamata's nightmare deepens! Saayoni Ghosh, Dev, Rachana Banerjee among 19 rebel MPs seeking TMC split | Trump claims US 'ended war with Iran', Tehran yet to confirm a deal | Heartbreak for Indian sports: Manu Bhaker's mentor Jaspal Rana passes away at 49 | Three Indian seafarers, missing after US strike on tanker near Oman, confirmed dead | 'Choose your side': TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee's ultimatum to Mamata in open revolt against Abhishek | Fresh trouble for Abhishek Banerjee! Calcutta HC orders TMC MP to appear before CID in forgery case by 6 pm today | 'No resignation, no retreat': Cockroach Janta Party takes paper leak protest nationwide | TCS goes all-in on AI! Partners with Anthropic, gives Claude access to 50,000 employees | Viral video outrage! Ola driver brutally assaults 70-year-old man over spitting row; arrested after Shinde's personal intervention | Mamata under pressure! Third Rajya Sabha MP Prakash Chik Baraik quits, hints at BJP move
Donald Trump
Photo courtesy: Wallpaper cave

US Court of Appeals begins hearing into Donald Trump gag order

| @indiablooms | Nov 21, 2023, at 05:40 am

Washington/IBNS/UNI: The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit began a hearing on Monday into former US President Donald Trump’s challenge against a gag order in his criminal case regarding his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, issued the gag order last month after the government had shown that Trump’s public attacks on individuals, including those related to the case, had led to them being threatened and harassed.

Judge Patricia Millet, one of the three judges on the panel hearing the appeal, sharply challenged the merit of the Trump team’s proposed legal test of “clear and present danger” as a basis for a gag order instead.

She disputed whether it presented a different standard for trial participants compared to outsiders; moreover, criminal law would likely already cover actions that involved clear and present danger.

Millet also noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that “clear and present danger” was not a mechanical formulation, but a balancing test.

In Trump’s case, it would mean striking a balance between political campaign speech and the integrity of the criminal trial, but in Millett’s view, his team was not able to provide anything other than a criminal law violation to satisfy their proposed test.

The court adjourned the case until November 30.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.