January 06, 2025 04:20 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Delhi elections: Congress launches Pyari Didi scheme promising Rs. 2,500 per month to women residents | Chhattisgarh journalist murder: Victim's heart was ripped out, had 15 fractures to head, a broken neck; accused arrested | India's health ministry confirms two HMPV cases in Karnataka | Canadian PM Justin Trudeau may step down as Liberal Party leader this week: Reports | Bharatiya Janata Party releases first list of candidates for Delhi Assembly polls, fields Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma against Kejriwal | Firecracker unit explosion in Tamil Nadu's Virudhunagar kills 6 | Body of independent journalist, who went missing on Jan 1, found in a septic tank in Chhattisgarh | Delhi: 14-year-old student stabbed to death outside school after brawl with classmate | Rohit Sharma confirms he is not retiring amid speculations after skipping Sydney Test | India objects to China's 'new counties' announcement, says parts of these come under Ladakh
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.
Related Images
Xi Jinping, Putin in Russia Mar 22, 2023, at 08:26 pm