A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism about whether U.S. President Donald Trump can constitutionally block Twitter users whose views he does not like from following and responding to his own Twitter account.

At a hearing in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald asked Michael Baer, a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice arguing for Trump, whether letting the president bar users from @realDonaldTrump would violate their First Amendment free speech rights.

She asked whether Twitter was different from a public town hall, where government officials would be unable to pull the plug from a microphone to mute speakers with unwelcome views.

&quot;Once it is a public forum, you can`t shut somebody up because you don`t like what they`re saying,&quot; Buchwald said.

Baer said the appropriate analogy was not a town hall, but rather Trump choosing to walk away from someone at a public event.

&quot;The president has an associational interest in deciding who he`s going to spend his time with in that setting,&quot; he said.

Near the close of the hearing, Buchwald suggested the lawsuit could be easily resolved if Trump agreed to mute, rather than block, Twitter users whose tweets he did not want to read. Both sides` lawyers said they were receptive to the idea.

If Trump muted a user, he would not see that user`s tweets, but the user could still see and respond to the president`s tweets.

The lawsuit was filed against Trump in July by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users. Buchwald is considering motions from both sides seeking judgment in their favor.

The plaintiffs have said Trump`s account is a public forum, and that the president cannot block Twitter users simply because they criticize him in replies to his tweets.

Trump`s Twitter use draws intense interest for his unvarnished commentary, including attacks on critics. His tweets often shape news.

Katherine Fallow, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Buchwald the record &quot;shows unambiguously that the president operates his account in an official capacity.&quot;

Baer acknowledged that Trump sometimes uses his Twitter account to announce policy, but said that blocking users was not an official action.

Baer also argued that the court cannot order the president to unblock users, because of his position as head of another branch of government.

Twitter lets users post short texts, called tweets, to which other users may respond.

The judge asked whether Twitter was different from a public town hall

A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism about whether U.S. President Donald Trump can constitutionally block Twitter users whose views he does not like from following and responding to his own Twitter account. At a hearing in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald asked Michael Baer, a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice arguing for Trump, whether letting the president bar users from @realDonaldTrump would violate their First Amendment free speech rights. She asked whether Twitter was different from a public town hall, where government officials would be unable to pull the plug from a microphone to mute speakers with unwelcome views. "Once it is a public forum, you can`t shut somebody up because you don`t like what they`re saying," Buchwald said. Baer said the appropriate analogy was not a town hall, but rather Trump choosing to walk away from someone at a public event. "The president has an associational interest in deciding who he`s going to spend his time with in that setting," he said. Near the close of the hearing, Buchwald suggested the lawsuit could be easily resolved if Trump agreed to mute, rather than block, Twitter users whose tweets he did not want to read. Both sides` lawyers said they were receptive to the idea. If Trump muted a user, he would not see that user`s tweets, but the user could still see and respond to the president`s tweets. The lawsuit was filed against Trump in July by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users. Buchwald is considering motions from both sides seeking judgment in their favor. The plaintiffs have said Trump`s account is a public forum, and that the president cannot block Twitter users simply because they criticize him in replies to his tweets. Trump`s Twitter use draws intense interest for his unvarnished commentary, including attacks on critics. His tweets often shape news. Katherine Fallow, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Buchwald the record "shows unambiguously that the president operates his account in an official capacity." Baer acknowledged that Trump sometimes uses his Twitter account to announce policy, but said that blocking users was not an official action. Baer also argued that the court cannot order the president to unblock users, because of his position as head of another branch of government. Twitter lets users post short texts, called tweets, to which other users may respond.

US judge questions whether Trump can block Twitter users

A US judge on Tuesday blocked an executive order by President Donald Trump that could deny billions of dollars to so-called sanctuary cities as punishment for harboring illegal immigrants.

Dealing a fresh setback to Trump&#39;s pledged crackdown on undocumented residents, Judge William Orrick of San Francisco&#39;s federal court issued a preliminary injunction barring any attempt to implement the January 25 executive order.

&quot;Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves,&quot; Orrick said.

The decision -- which could impact more than 300 cities and counties that have denounced Trump&#39;s order -- is another blow to the White House following successful court challenges to its two travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries.

Trump&#39;s order threatened the transfer of some $1.7 billion to Santa Clara County and $1.2 billion for San Francisco.

Santa Clara counsel James R. Williams described it as &quot;a historic affirmation&quot; of the constitutional principle that Washington cannot &quot;coerce local governments into becoming federal immigration enforcers.&quot;

Orrick noted that the government&#39;s lawyers had sought to avoid arguing the issue of whether the Trump administration had the right to take such steps.&nbsp;

Instead, they weakly challenged the right of San Francisco and Santa Clara County to fight the order because neither had been formally declared &quot;sanctuary jurisdictions&quot; -- a phrase that remains vague in the law.

&nbsp;&#39;Dangerous overreach&#39;

The judge said the key issue remained Trump&#39;s repeated statements that funding is a &quot;weapon&quot; to use against cities that resist his policies. That demonstrates the government&#39;s intent, he said, and is unconstitutional.

&quot;The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the president, so the order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,&quot; he said.

Dave Cortese, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, said in a statement the decision had dealt a &quot;major setback&quot; to the politics of fear.

&quot;Millions of people across the country can continue to receive essential medical care, go to school and remain active members of their communities without fear that their local governments are being forced to work against them, rather than for them,&quot; he added.

The decision was being closely watched in Seattle, which filed its own lawsuit against the order in March.

Ed Murray, mayor of the northwestern city of almost 700,000, issued a statement welcoming the ruling as &quot;yet another rebuke&quot; of Trump&#39;s &quot;dangerous overreach.&quot;&nbsp;

New York mayor Bill de Blasio denounced Trump&#39;s &quot;illogical and unconstitutional desire to scapegoat immigrants&quot; while Chicago&#39;s Rahm Emanuel vowed his administration would not &quot;sit idly by while President Trump threatens American cities because he doesn&#39;t share our values.&quot;

Reform &#39;long overdue&#39;

California attorney general Xavier Becerra said the president was trying to &quot;hijack crucial resources, sow fear among California families and make our communities less safe.&quot;

Attorney General Jeff Sessions lashed out at sanctuary cities on Friday last week accusing them of allowing illegal immigrants who are violent criminals to go free.

Orrick&#39;s ruling still allows the Department of Justice to follow through with threats made to nine cities last week -- including Chicago, New Orleans and Philadelphia -- to cut specific program grants if the cities did not adequately cooperate with federal immigration officers.

&quot;The Court upheld the &#39;Government&rsquo;s ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 USC&nbsp;1373,&#39;&quot; Justice spokesman Ian Prior said.

And &quot;the order does not purport to enjoin the Department&rsquo;s independent legal authority to enforce the requirements of federal law applicable to communities that violate federal immigration law or federal grant conditions,&quot; Prior said.

A meeting in Washington on Tuesday between a group of major-city mayors and Sessions demonstrated that the two sides remain at odds over Trump&#39;s election promise to expel some 11.3 million immigrants without legal residency.

The mayors said federal policy remains unclear and inconsistent, and complained the government is telling them to deploy local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws.

&quot;None of this discussion would be necessary if Congress and the president would enact comprehensive immigration reform, which is long overdue,&quot; said New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.

(AFP)

 
&nbsp;

Trump's order could have possibly denied billions of dollars to so-called sanctuary cities as punishment for harboring illegal immigrants

A US judge on Tuesday blocked an executive order by President Donald Trump that could deny billions of dollars to so-called sanctuary cities as punishment for harboring illegal immigrants. Dealing a fresh setback to Trump's pledged crackdown on undocumented residents, Judge William Orrick of San Francisco's federal court issued a preliminary injunction barring any attempt to implement the January 25 executive order. "Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves," Orrick said. The decision -- which could impact more than 300 cities and counties that have denounced Trump's order -- is another blow to the White House following successful court challenges to its two travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries. Trump's order threatened the transfer of some $1.7 billion to Santa Clara County and $1.2 billion for San Francisco. Santa Clara counsel James R. Williams described it as "a historic affirmation" of the constitutional principle that Washington cannot "coerce local governments into becoming federal immigration enforcers." Orrick noted that the government's lawyers had sought to avoid arguing the issue of whether the Trump administration had the right to take such steps. Instead, they weakly challenged the right of San Francisco and Santa Clara County to fight the order because neither had been formally declared "sanctuary jurisdictions" -- a phrase that remains vague in the law. 'Dangerous overreach' The judge said the key issue remained Trump's repeated statements that funding is a "weapon" to use against cities that resist his policies. That demonstrates the government's intent, he said, and is unconstitutional. "The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the president, so the order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds," he said. Dave Cortese, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, said in a statement the decision had dealt a "major setback" to the politics of fear. "Millions of people across the country can continue to receive essential medical care, go to school and remain active members of their communities without fear that their local governments are being forced to work against them, rather than for them," he added. The decision was being closely watched in Seattle, which filed its own lawsuit against the order in March. Ed Murray, mayor of the northwestern city of almost 700,000, issued a statement welcoming the ruling as "yet another rebuke" of Trump's "dangerous overreach." New York mayor Bill de Blasio denounced Trump's "illogical and unconstitutional desire to scapegoat immigrants" while Chicago's Rahm Emanuel vowed his administration would not "sit idly by while President Trump threatens American cities because he doesn't share our values." Reform 'long overdue' California attorney general Xavier Becerra said the president was trying to "hijack crucial resources, sow fear among California families and make our communities less safe." Attorney General Jeff Sessions lashed out at sanctuary cities on Friday last week accusing them of allowing illegal immigrants who are violent criminals to go free. Orrick's ruling still allows the Department of Justice to follow through with threats made to nine cities last week -- including Chicago, New Orleans and Philadelphia -- to cut specific program grants if the cities did not adequately cooperate with federal immigration officers. "The Court upheld the 'Government’s ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 USC 1373,'" Justice spokesman Ian Prior said. And "the order does not purport to enjoin the Department’s independent legal authority to enforce the requirements of federal law applicable to communities that violate federal immigration law or federal grant conditions," Prior said. A meeting in Washington on Tuesday between a group of major-city mayors and Sessions demonstrated that the two sides remain at odds over Trump's election promise to expel some 11.3 million immigrants without legal residency. The mayors said federal policy remains unclear and inconsistent, and complained the government is telling them to deploy local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. "None of this discussion would be necessary if Congress and the president would enact comprehensive immigration reform, which is long overdue," said New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu. (AFP)

US judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary cities

An Indian citizen has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for conspiring to support terrorist attacks in India, including assassination of an Indian government official, as part of the Khalistan movement to create an independent Sikh state.

42-year-old Balwinder Singh was sentenced yesterday by US District Judge Larry Hicks in Reno to 180 months in prison for conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists for the movement to create the independent Sikh state, US Attorney

Daniel Bogden for the District of Nevada and Special Agent in Charge Aaron C Rouse for the FBI&#39;s Las Vegas Division said.

Bogden said, Singh, a Reno resident, was a member of two terrorist groups and provided material support to &quot;intimidate&quot; the Indian government and to harm persons who were not supporting the terrorism groups&#39; cause.

&quot;This case is an example of multi-law enforcement agencies working collaboratively together to protect the United States and our foreign allies from a terrorist act,&quot; Bogden added.

Singh, who also went by the alias Jhaji and Baljit Singh is a citizen of India and a permanent US resident. He had pleaded guilty in November last year.

According to court documents, between September and December 2013, Singh conspired with others to support terrorist attacks in India as part of the Khalistan movement to create an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region.

Singh agreed to provide &quot;material support&quot; by helping facilitate a co-conspirator&#39;s travel to and within South Asia; to provide necessary funding; and to provide materials necessary to carry out the attack.

On occasions, Singh travelled from Reno to California to meet a co-conspirator in person.

In October 2013, Singh and his co-conspirators agreed that one of them would travel to India and carry out a terror attack likely an assassination or maiming of an Indian governmental official. The final target was to be determined after the co-conspirator arrived in South Asia.

In November 2013, Singh purchased two sets of night vision goggles and a laptop computer and provided these items to a co-conspirator who was going to carry out the planned terror attack. The co-conspirator attempted to board a flight from the San Francisco International Airport to Bangkok in December 2013 in order to carry out the terror attack but US law enforcement prevented the co-conspirator from boarding that flight, thwarting the planned terror attack.

After these events, Singh and his co-conspirators continued to discuss and plan the terror attack in India until Singh&#39;s arrest in December 2013.

(PTI)

The plot included the assassination of an Indian government official, as part of the Khalistan movement to create an independent Sikh state

An Indian citizen has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for conspiring to support terrorist attacks in India, including assassination of an Indian government official, as part of the Khalistan movement to create an independent Sikh state. 42-year-old Balwinder Singh was sentenced yesterday by US District Judge Larry Hicks in Reno to 180 months in prison for conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists for the movement to create the independent Sikh state, US Attorney Daniel Bogden for the District of Nevada and Special Agent in Charge Aaron C Rouse for the FBI's Las Vegas Division said. Bogden said, Singh, a Reno resident, was a member of two terrorist groups and provided material support to "intimidate" the Indian government and to harm persons who were not supporting the terrorism groups' cause. "This case is an example of multi-law enforcement agencies working collaboratively together to protect the United States and our foreign allies from a terrorist act," Bogden added. Singh, who also went by the alias Jhaji and Baljit Singh is a citizen of India and a permanent US resident. He had pleaded guilty in November last year. According to court documents, between September and December 2013, Singh conspired with others to support terrorist attacks in India as part of the Khalistan movement to create an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region. Singh agreed to provide "material support" by helping facilitate a co-conspirator's travel to and within South Asia; to provide necessary funding; and to provide materials necessary to carry out the attack. On occasions, Singh travelled from Reno to California to meet a co-conspirator in person. In October 2013, Singh and his co-conspirators agreed that one of them would travel to India and carry out a terror attack likely an assassination or maiming of an Indian governmental official. The final target was to be determined after the co-conspirator arrived in South Asia. In November 2013, Singh purchased two sets of night vision goggles and a laptop computer and provided these items to a co-conspirator who was going to carry out the planned terror attack. The co-conspirator attempted to board a flight from the San Francisco International Airport to Bangkok in December 2013 in order to carry out the terror attack but US law enforcement prevented the co-conspirator from boarding that flight, thwarting the planned terror attack. After these events, Singh and his co-conspirators continued to discuss and plan the terror attack in India until Singh's arrest in December 2013. (PTI)

US judge gives Indian citizen 15 years for plotting terror attacks in India

us-judge

Us Judge, News on Us Judge, stories on Us Judge, articles on Us Judge, Us Judge stories at Wion, Us Judge news, Us Judge latest news

us judge

US judge questions whether Trump can block Twitter users

US judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary cities

US judge gives Indian citizen 15 years for plotting terror attacks in India