August 10, 2026 04:51 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
‘A morning I will cherish’: Raghav Chadha meets PM Modi, shares photos from ‘enriching’ meeting | Delhi Mercedes crash kills 70-year-old woman: Cop’s son behind wheel, beer bottle found | Indian-origin woman accused of ‘visa fraud’ on X: US Attorney steps in with major clarification | US Senate passes Russia sanctions bill: India can face Trump’s 100% tariff threat | Expired meat, rotten vegetables found at Bengaluru's luxury hotels, legal action begins | 'I'm ready to be humiliated': Vijay, Udhayanidhi Stalin clash in Tamil Nadu Assembly over Cauvery dispute | 'They don't need Mohan Bhagwat's certificate': Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's sharp reply to RSS chief's Gen Z remark | 'Students, Gen Z, ask me anything': Rahul Gandhi launches Instagram Q&A, responds to Jharkhand protest | PM Modi goes Gen Z, urges Indians to share 'Get Ready With Me' videos on National Handloom Day | Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal sentenced to 10-year jail term in 2013 rape case as Bombay HC overturns acquittal
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.