October 02, 2026 12:17 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Flydubai cockpit attack: Injured Indian pilot Smit Machchhar airlifted to Abu Dhabi | India backs brave flydubai pilot Smit Machchhar, Ambassador meets family after cockpit attack | ‘Saved us from a 9/11’: PM Modi praises Captain Smit Machchhar after terrifying flydubai cockpit attack | 'India is proud': PM Modi hails Flydubai Captain Smit Machchhar as ‘hero’ after mid-air cockpit horror | ‘Too early to say’: Benjamin Netanyahu on Iran link to flydubai plane incident | ‘I didn’t wait, I ran’: Israeli dentist reveals how he saved wounded Flydubai captain during cockpit attack | Israel-bound flight lands in Saudi Arabia as pilots fight in cockpit, stabbing triggers hijack scare mid-air | Vimal ad row: SRK, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff respond to FDA notices, says Tukaram Mundhe | Vijay’s TVK expands to Bengal? Party breaks silence on Purba Bardhaman office | ‘This guy is a monster’: Trump’s hilarious praise for Sundar Pichai, Google CEO’s witty reply
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.