August 15, 2026 09:31 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Ajit Doval breaks silence on Operation Sindoor in Discovery’s explosive new docuseries | Rahul Gandhi's 'mock hug' taunt sparks row; Centre stresses 'mutual respect' with Italy | Delhi on high alert: Bomb threat to High Court, airport and multiple locations ahead of I-Day | ‘Who are they to interfere?’: CJI Surya Kant slams Bar Council of India over NALSAR students’ enrolment row | 'Shows how low Congress has sunk': BJP slams Rahul Gandhi over Modi foreign policy jibe | From guns to glamour: Former women Maoists walk the ramp in Chhattisgarh | Netaji row: Suvendu Adhikari govt strips BJP MP Anant Maharaj of state honour | Sukhbir Badal attacked by Nihang Sikh with kirpan at Maharashtra gurdwara; assailant detained | ‘If you cannot do it, we will pass an order’: Supreme Court’s final warning to Centre on food labels | ‘Time to move on’: Bombay HC sends strong message in Vijay Mallya-bank dispute
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.