July 28, 2026 09:25 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Assam floods: Death toll stays at 68 as over 5.24 lakh continue to battle deluge | 'Probe is meaningless if responsibility isn't fixed': Supreme Court slams Delhi Police over CJP protest crackdown | 'No protester will be left alone': CJP claims Centre shared FIR withdrawal copies after midnight talks | Bihar cop suspended after viral AK-47 firing video during NEET protest crackdown | After Dharmendra Pradhan's exit, 'E20 Janta Party' emerges, demands Nitin Gadkari's resignation over fuel policy | 'Can't lathicharge people just because they are protesting': Supreme Court slams Delhi Police over NEET protest crackdown | 'Victory of democracy': Sonam Wangchuk congratulates Gen Z as Dharmendra Pradhan resigns after month-long NEET protests | 'Democracy has triumphed': CJP celebrates as Dharmendra Pradhan quits, warns Centre 'Don't mess with cockroaches' | Centre buckles under CJP-led NEET protests; Dharmendra Pradhan quits as Education Minister | Delhi Police flags 2,500 suspected criminals at Jantar Mantar amid NEET protest
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.