In a blow to the Trump administration's U-Mexico border strategy, a federal court judge in California has expanded the number of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-unable-to-reunite-young-migrant-children-with-families-150639">migrant families separated at the border</a> that the government may be required to reunite.

San Diego-based US District Court Judge Dana Sabraw late on Friday issued a preliminary ruling that would potentially expand by thousands the number of migrants included in a class-action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sabraw already ordered the Trump administration last year to reunite more than 2,800 migrant children who were separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border under the administration's "zero tolerance" policy.

But he will allow more separated families to join the class-action lawsuit after a report released in January by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Inspector General, which identified potentially thousands more families that had been separated as early as July 1, 2017. The administration's "zero tolerance" policy did not take effect until May 2018.

"The hallmark of a civilized society is measured by how it treats its people and those within its borders," Sabraw said in his ruling.

Sabraw said that report was "a significant development in this case" and its contents "are undisputed."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to calls for comment.

The administration of US President Donald Trump implemented the zero-tolerance policy to criminally prosecute and jail all illegal border crossers - even those traveling with their children - which led to a wave of separations last year.

The policy sparked outrage when it became public, and the backlash led Trump to sign an executive order reversing course on June 20, 2018.

The IG report said prior to the officially announced zero-tolerance policy, the government began ramping up separations in 2017 for other reasons related to a child’s safety and well-being, including separating parents with criminal records or lack of proper documents.

A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said in January after the IG report came out that the practice of separating apprehended minors from adults to protect the interests of the children has been standard practice “for more than a decade.”

The report also said more than 100 minors, including more than two dozen under age 5, were separated after the President’s executive order.

“The court made clear that potentially thousands of children’s lives are at stake and that the Trump administration cannot simply ignore the devastation it has caused,” Lee Gelernt, ACLU lead attorney in the class-action family separation lawsuit, said on Friday.

In a blow to the Trump administration's U-Mexico border strategy, a federal court judge in California has expanded the number of migrant families separated at the border that the government may be required to reunite.

In a blow to the Trump administration's U-Mexico border strategy, a federal court judge in California has expanded the number of migrant families separated at the border that the government may be required to reunite. San Diego-based US District Court Judge Dana Sabraw late on Friday issued a preliminary ruling that would potentially expand by thousands the number of migrants included in a class-action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. Sabraw already ordered the Trump administration last year to reunite more than 2,800 migrant children who were separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border under the administration's "zero tolerance" policy. But he will allow more separated families to join the class-action lawsuit after a report released in January by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Inspector General, which identified potentially thousands more families that had been separated as early as July 1, 2017. The administration's "zero tolerance" policy did not take effect until May 2018. "The hallmark of a civilized society is measured by how it treats its people and those within its borders," Sabraw said in his ruling. Sabraw said that report was "a significant development in this case" and its contents "are undisputed." The Justice Department did not immediately respond to calls for comment. The administration of US President Donald Trump implemented the zero-tolerance policy to criminally prosecute and jail all illegal border crossers - even those traveling with their children - which led to a wave of separations last year. The policy sparked outrage when it became public, and the backlash led Trump to sign an executive order reversing course on June 20, 2018. The IG report said prior to the officially announced zero-tolerance policy, the government began ramping up separations in 2017 for other reasons related to a child’s safety and well-being, including separating parents with criminal records or lack of proper documents. A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said in January after the IG report came out that the practice of separating apprehended minors from adults to protect the interests of the children has been standard practice “for more than a decade.” The report also said more than 100 minors, including more than two dozen under age 5, were separated after the President’s executive order. “The court made clear that potentially thousands of children’s lives are at stake and that the Trump administration cannot simply ignore the devastation it has caused,” Lee Gelernt, ACLU lead attorney in the class-action family separation lawsuit, said on Friday.

US judge may force Trump administration to reunite more families separated at Mexico border

A US judge refused Wednesday to unseal charges that the government is believed to have prepared against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the federal court in Alexandria, Virginia said that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which petitioned for the unsealing order, had not proven the Assange case existed -- despite it having been referenced in court documents from another case.

Assange, who has stayed under diplomatic protection in the Ecuadoran embassy in London since August 2012, says the United States plans to indict him over WikiLeaks' publishing classified materials.

Assange says Washington wants him arrested and extradited if he steps foot outside the embassy.

He hopes that, by unsealing the charges, he may be able to protect himself from arrest in Britain.

US Justice Department authorities have refused for more than two years to acknowledge that they have investigated and prepared charges against the anti-secrecy advocate.

But in November, a document in a separate case that was inadvertently unsealed made two references to an "Assange" case.

Assange said the document demonstrated that he does face charges and demanded they be revealed; the Reporters Committee then filed a motion to have them unsealed.

But Brinkema said the existence of the case was not "sufficiently certain," so the government could not be asked to reveal documents it might have, noting that investigations often must remain secret until they are completed and a suspect can be arrested.

"To hold otherwise would mean that any member of the public or press -- by demanding access to judicial records based on little more than speculation -- could effectively force the government to admit or deny that charges had been filed."

The New York Times reported in November that it confirmed charges had indeed been drawn up against Assange, who maintains his publishing&nbsp; 
activities are protected like those of journalists.

It remains unclear what the charges specifically allege.

Assange originally fell afoul of US authorities after WikiLeaks published classified Pentagon and State Department documents in 2010.

During the 2016 US presidential race, the website created a huge stir when it published emails and documents from the campaign of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton that US officials say were hacked by Russian intelligence and transferred to Assange.

Last week, Assange asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to order President Donald Trump's administration to unseal charges against him.&nbsp;

A US judge refused Wednesday to unseal charges that the government is believed to have prepared against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the federal court in Alexandria, Virginia said that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which petitioned for the unsealing order, had not proven the Assange case existed -- despite it having been referenced in court documents from another case.

A US judge refused Wednesday to unseal charges that the government is believed to have prepared against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the federal court in Alexandria, Virginia said that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which petitioned for the unsealing order, had not proven the Assange case existed -- despite it having been referenced in court documents from another case. Assange, who has stayed under diplomatic protection in the Ecuadoran embassy in London since August 2012, says the United States plans to indict him over WikiLeaks' publishing classified materials. Assange says Washington wants him arrested and extradited if he steps foot outside the embassy. He hopes that, by unsealing the charges, he may be able to protect himself from arrest in Britain. US Justice Department authorities have refused for more than two years to acknowledge that they have investigated and prepared charges against the anti-secrecy advocate. But in November, a document in a separate case that was inadvertently unsealed made two references to an "Assange" case. Assange said the document demonstrated that he does face charges and demanded they be revealed; the Reporters Committee then filed a motion to have them unsealed. But Brinkema said the existence of the case was not "sufficiently certain," so the government could not be asked to reveal documents it might have, noting that investigations often must remain secret until they are completed and a suspect can be arrested. "To hold otherwise would mean that any member of the public or press -- by demanding access to judicial records based on little more than speculation -- could effectively force the government to admit or deny that charges had been filed." The New York Times reported in November that it confirmed charges had indeed been drawn up against Assange, who maintains his publishing activities are protected like those of journalists. It remains unclear what the charges specifically allege. Assange originally fell afoul of US authorities after WikiLeaks published classified Pentagon and State Department documents in 2010. During the 2016 US presidential race, the website created a huge stir when it published emails and documents from the campaign of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton that US officials say were hacked by Russian intelligence and transferred to Assange. Last week, Assange asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to order President Donald Trump's administration to unseal charges against him.

US judge won't unseal 'charges' against WikiLeaks' Assange

US judge orders N. Korea to pay $501 million to Warmbiers

A US judge on Wednesday struck down <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/texas-shelter-helps-asylum-seekers-as-trump-clamps-down-178737">Trump administration policies aimed</a> at restricting asylum claims by people citing gang or domestic violence in their home countries and ordered the US government to bring back six deported migrants to reconsider their cases.

The ruling is the latest<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-asylum-restrictions-178370"> legal setback for the White House</a> on immigration. Last month, a judge in San Francisco ordered a halt to a policy that prevented those entering illegally from Mexico from seeking asylum.

The policy at the centre Wednesday's ruling sought to limit the ability of immigrants to fight expedited deportation by narrowing the grounds for claiming "credible fear" if they returned home, the first step in a long asylum process.

The policy was challenged in a District of Columbia lawsuit brought by a dozen adults and children. US Judge Emmet Sullivan said in a 107-page opinion the policy violated both immigration and administrative law.

"And because it is the will of Congress - not the whims of the executive - that determines the standard for expedited removal, the court finds that those policies are unlawful," Sullivan wrote.

In a statement, the Department of Justice said administration policies sought to follow Congress' requirement that asylum be limited to those with a fear of persecution based on their race, nationality, religion, political opinion or membership in a social group.

The DOJ filed a request to stay the court's orders while the government appealed. Sullivan had not responded to that request.

Sullivan, an appointee of US President Bill Clinton, made headlines on Tuesday for his fierce criticism of Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, for lying to FBI agents.

For the last three months of 2017, the most recent numbers, the government conducted about 6,000 credible fear interviews monthly. The vast majority passed those interviews, allowing them to make their case for asylum in front of a US immigration judge.

Jennifer Chang Newell, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the asylum seekers, said the ruling "is a defeat for the Trump administration’s all-out assault on the rights of asylum seekers."

The ruling clears the way for four mothers and two children to be returned to the United States, she said.

The administration has said that the asylum process is being abused by people who have frivolous claims but are able to stay in the country while their cases are being decided.

In a separate case, U.S. District Judge John Tigar in San Francisco on Wednesday extended his previous order that blocked Trump's policy to bar those entering illegally from Mexico from seeking asylum.

The preliminary injunction ordered by Tigar will remain in place while the litigation unfolds, unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes.

Illegal crossings at the southern border have dropped dramatically since the late 1970s. But in recent years, applications for asylum have ballooned, and more Central American families and unaccompanied children are migrating to the United States.

On Tuesday, the United States committed billions of dollars towards development in Central America and Mexico as part of a plan to curb illegal immigration.

A US judge on Wednesday struck down Trump administration policies aimed at restricting asylum claims by people citing gang or domestic violence in their home countries and ordered the US government to bring back six deported migrants to reconsider their cases.

A US judge on Wednesday struck down Trump administration policies aimed at restricting asylum claims by people citing gang or domestic violence in their home countries and ordered the US government to bring back six deported migrants to reconsider their cases. The ruling is the latest legal setback for the White House on immigration. Last month, a judge in San Francisco ordered a halt to a policy that prevented those entering illegally from Mexico from seeking asylum. The policy at the centre Wednesday's ruling sought to limit the ability of immigrants to fight expedited deportation by narrowing the grounds for claiming "credible fear" if they returned home, the first step in a long asylum process. The policy was challenged in a District of Columbia lawsuit brought by a dozen adults and children. US Judge Emmet Sullivan said in a 107-page opinion the policy violated both immigration and administrative law. "And because it is the will of Congress - not the whims of the executive - that determines the standard for expedited removal, the court finds that those policies are unlawful," Sullivan wrote. In a statement, the Department of Justice said administration policies sought to follow Congress' requirement that asylum be limited to those with a fear of persecution based on their race, nationality, religion, political opinion or membership in a social group. The DOJ filed a request to stay the court's orders while the government appealed. Sullivan had not responded to that request. Sullivan, an appointee of US President Bill Clinton, made headlines on Tuesday for his fierce criticism of Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, for lying to FBI agents. For the last three months of 2017, the most recent numbers, the government conducted about 6,000 credible fear interviews monthly. The vast majority passed those interviews, allowing them to make their case for asylum in front of a US immigration judge. Jennifer Chang Newell, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the asylum seekers, said the ruling "is a defeat for the Trump administration’s all-out assault on the rights of asylum seekers." The ruling clears the way for four mothers and two children to be returned to the United States, she said. The administration has said that the asylum process is being abused by people who have frivolous claims but are able to stay in the country while their cases are being decided. In a separate case, U.S. District Judge John Tigar in San Francisco on Wednesday extended his previous order that blocked Trump's policy to bar those entering illegally from Mexico from seeking asylum. The preliminary injunction ordered by Tigar will remain in place while the litigation unfolds, unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. Illegal crossings at the southern border have dropped dramatically since the late 1970s. But in recent years, applications for asylum have ballooned, and more Central American families and unaccompanied children are migrating to the United States. On Tuesday, the United States committed billions of dollars towards development in Central America and Mexico as part of a plan to curb illegal immigration.

US judge rules in favour of asylum seekers

A US judge closely questioned the government on Monday as he weighed whether to temporarily halt an order from President Donald Trump that bars asylum for migrants who illegally cross the border with Mexico.

Trump cited an overwhelmed immigration system for his recent proclamation that officials will only process asylum claims for migrants who present themselves at an official entry point. Civil rights groups argue that Trump's November 9 order violated administrative and immigration law.

At hearing in San Francisco federal court, US District Judge Jon Tigar repeatedly asked a Justice Department attorney whether Trump's order was justified and supported by actual evidence.

"To say something is true does not make it true," Tigar said.

The judge did not issue a ruling during the hearing. Any decision would likely be procedural and would restore prior asylum rules while the rights groups made their case for a preliminary injunction at a future hearing.

Tigar was nominated to the court by President Barack Obama.

The hearing came as thousands of Central Americans, including a large number of children, are travelling in caravans towards the US border to escape violence and poverty at home. Some have already arrived at Tijuana, a Mexican city on the border with California.

Rights groups have said immigrants are being forced to wait days or weeks at the border before they can present themselves for asylum, and the administration has been sued for deliberately slowing processing times at official ports.

At the hearing, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt said the order clearly conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows any person present in the United States to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the country.

Gelernt said the ACLU has recently learned Mexican authorities have begun barring unaccompanied minors from applying at US ports of entry.

"These kids are in desperate danger," he said.

Caravan participants began to arrive last week in Tijuana on the Mexican side of the US border, which has put a strain on humanitarian shelters where many will wait to seek asylum. Their presence has also strained Tijuana's reputation as a welcoming city, with some residents screaming at the migrants, "Get out!"

Trump sent more than 5,000 soldiers to the 2,000-mile (3,100 km) frontier with Mexico to harden the border, although critics dismissed the move as a political stunt ahead of congressional elections on November 6.

A US judge closely questioned the government on Monday as he weighed whether to temporarily halt an order from President Donald Trump that bars asylum for migrants who illegally cross the border with Mexico.

A US judge closely questioned the government on Monday as he weighed whether to temporarily halt an order from President Donald Trump that bars asylum for migrants who illegally cross the border with Mexico. Trump cited an overwhelmed immigration system for his recent proclamation that officials will only process asylum claims for migrants who present themselves at an official entry point. Civil rights groups argue that Trump's November 9 order violated administrative and immigration law. At hearing in San Francisco federal court, US District Judge Jon Tigar repeatedly asked a Justice Department attorney whether Trump's order was justified and supported by actual evidence. "To say something is true does not make it true," Tigar said. The judge did not issue a ruling during the hearing. Any decision would likely be procedural and would restore prior asylum rules while the rights groups made their case for a preliminary injunction at a future hearing. Tigar was nominated to the court by President Barack Obama. The hearing came as thousands of Central Americans, including a large number of children, are travelling in caravans towards the US border to escape violence and poverty at home. Some have already arrived at Tijuana, a Mexican city on the border with California. Rights groups have said immigrants are being forced to wait days or weeks at the border before they can present themselves for asylum, and the administration has been sued for deliberately slowing processing times at official ports. At the hearing, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt said the order clearly conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows any person present in the United States to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the country. Gelernt said the ACLU has recently learned Mexican authorities have begun barring unaccompanied minors from applying at US ports of entry. "These kids are in desperate danger," he said. Caravan participants began to arrive last week in Tijuana on the Mexican side of the US border, which has put a strain on humanitarian shelters where many will wait to seek asylum. Their presence has also strained Tijuana's reputation as a welcoming city, with some residents screaming at the migrants, "Get out!" Trump sent more than 5,000 soldiers to the 2,000-mile (3,100 km) frontier with Mexico to harden the border, although critics dismissed the move as a political stunt ahead of congressional elections on November 6.

US judge questions Trump administration on asylum policy

In a major blow to US President, a&nbsp;federal judge on Friday ordered the White House to reinstate the press credentials of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/white-house-revokes-press-pass-of-cnn-reporter-after-furious-exchange-with-trump-176127">CNN reporter Jim Acosta</a>, whose pass was revoked after a heated exchange with Trump, the network said.

Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order that requires the White House to restore Acosta's access until a full hearing is held, according to the network.

CNN and other media groups, including Trump-endorsed Fox News, backed the lawsuit which claimed the revoking of Acosta's pass violated constitutional guarantees of a free press.

White House had barred CNN reporter, Jim Acosta, after a heated exchange at a news conference when a visibly angry US President Donald Trump called the former "enemy of the people" and a "terrible person" after being asked why he "demonized immigrants." 
&nbsp; 
The news conference, which stretched close to 90 minutes, quickly turned raucous when some reporters pushed him on whether his campaign rhetoric on migrants from central America was divisive - and on developments in a federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and any coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign, reported news agency Reuters.

After which, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/cnn-sues-us-president-donald-trump-top-white-house-aides-177129">CNN sued US President Donald Trump</a> and top White House aides over the revocation of CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press pass.&nbsp;

According to a Reuters report, in its lawsuit filed on Tuesday in US District Court in Washington, the cable news network said the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech as well as the due process clause of the Constitution providing fair treatment through judicial process.

The network asked for a temporary restraining order.

In a major blow to US President, a federal judge on Friday ordered the White House to reinstate the press credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta, whose pass was revoked after a heated exchange with Trump, the network said.

In a major blow to US President, a federal judge on Friday ordered the White House to reinstate the press credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta, whose pass was revoked after a heated exchange with Trump, the network said. Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order that requires the White House to restore Acosta's access until a full hearing is held, according to the network. CNN and other media groups, including Trump-endorsed Fox News, backed the lawsuit which claimed the revoking of Acosta's pass violated constitutional guarantees of a free press. White House had barred CNN reporter, Jim Acosta, after a heated exchange at a news conference when a visibly angry US President Donald Trump called the former "enemy of the people" and a "terrible person" after being asked why he "demonized immigrants." The news conference, which stretched close to 90 minutes, quickly turned raucous when some reporters pushed him on whether his campaign rhetoric on migrants from central America was divisive - and on developments in a federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and any coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign, reported news agency Reuters. After which, CNN sued US President Donald Trump and top White House aides over the revocation of CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press pass. According to a Reuters report, in its lawsuit filed on Tuesday in US District Court in Washington, the cable news network said the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech as well as the due process clause of the Constitution providing fair treatment through judicial process. The network asked for a temporary restraining order.

Judge rules in favour of CNN's request for emergency order restoring White House credentials for Jim Acosta

A US judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users from his account on the social media platform based on their political views.

Trump has made his @RealDonaldTrump Twitter account an integral and controversial part of his presidency, using it to promote his agenda, announce policy and attack critics. He has blocked many critics from his account, which prevents them from directly responding to his tweets.

US&nbspDistrict Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled that comments on the president's account, and those of other government officials, were public forums, and that blocking Twitter users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of Constitution.

Eugene Volokh, a University of California Los Angeles School of Law professor who specializes in First Amendment issues, said the decision’s effect would reach beyond Trump.

“It would end up applying to a wide range of government officials throughout the country,” he said.

The US&nbspDepartment of Justice, which represents Trump in the case, said, "We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps."

Twitter Inc, which is not a party to the lawsuit, declined to comment on the ruling.

Buchwald's ruling was in response to a First Amendment lawsuit filed against Trump in July by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users.

The individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Philip Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland Holly Figueroa, described in the complaint as a political organizer and songwriter in Washington state and Brandon Neely, a Texas police officer.

Cohen, who was blocked from Trump's account last June after posting an image of the president with words "Corrupt Incompetent Authoritarian," said he was "delighted" with Wednesday's decision.

"This increases my faith in the system a little," he said.

Novelists Stephen King and Anne Rice, comedian Rosie O'Donnell, model Chrissy Teigen, actress Marina Sirtis and the military veterans political action committee VoteVets.org are among the others who have said on Twitter that Trump blocked them.

Buchwald rejected the argument by Justice Department lawyers that Trump's own First Amendment rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to interact.

"While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the president’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him," Buchwald said.

She said Trump could "mute" users, meaning he would not see their tweets while they could still respond to his, without violating their free speech rights.

Duke University constitutional law professor Stuart Benjamin said he disagreed with Buchwald's finding that parts of Trump and other officials' Twitter accounts were public forums. He said he thought such a designation would require a more explicit statement to that effect by the government.

“If Donald Trump is giving a speech to 100 hand-picked people, and one of them heckles him, he gets to throw that person out,” said Benjamin, adding that he thought the president had a strong chance of winning an appeal of Buchwald's decision.

Buchwald stopped short of ordering Trump to unblock users. Trump had argued that the court did not have the power to issue a direct order against the president.

The judge said she disagreed, but that there was no need to get into a "legal thicket" over the issue because she assumed Trump or his social media director Dan Scavino, who also was a defendant in the case, would unblock the users in light of her decision.

Cohen said Trump had not yet unblocked him as of late Wednesday afternoon.

"Personally, I’m skeptical that he will take that step without more legal pressure," he said.

Judge ruled that comments on the president's account, and those of other government officials, were public forums, and that blocking Twitter users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of Constitution.

A US judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users from his account on the social media platform based on their political views. Trump has made his @RealDonaldTrump Twitter account an integral and controversial part of his presidency, using it to promote his agenda, announce policy and attack critics. He has blocked many critics from his account, which prevents them from directly responding to his tweets. US&nbspDistrict Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled that comments on the president's account, and those of other government officials, were public forums, and that blocking Twitter users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of Constitution. Eugene Volokh, a University of California Los Angeles School of Law professor who specializes in First Amendment issues, said the decision’s effect would reach beyond Trump. “It would end up applying to a wide range of government officials throughout the country,” he said. The US&nbspDepartment of Justice, which represents Trump in the case, said, "We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps." Twitter Inc, which is not a party to the lawsuit, declined to comment on the ruling. Buchwald's ruling was in response to a First Amendment lawsuit filed against Trump in July by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users. The individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Philip Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland Holly Figueroa, described in the complaint as a political organizer and songwriter in Washington state and Brandon Neely, a Texas police officer. Cohen, who was blocked from Trump's account last June after posting an image of the president with words "Corrupt Incompetent Authoritarian," said he was "delighted" with Wednesday's decision. "This increases my faith in the system a little," he said. Novelists Stephen King and Anne Rice, comedian Rosie O'Donnell, model Chrissy Teigen, actress Marina Sirtis and the military veterans political action committee VoteVets.org are among the others who have said on Twitter that Trump blocked them. Buchwald rejected the argument by Justice Department lawyers that Trump's own First Amendment rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to interact. "While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the president’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him," Buchwald said. She said Trump could "mute" users, meaning he would not see their tweets while they could still respond to his, without violating their free speech rights. Duke University constitutional law professor Stuart Benjamin said he disagreed with Buchwald's finding that parts of Trump and other officials' Twitter accounts were public forums. He said he thought such a designation would require a more explicit statement to that effect by the government. “If Donald Trump is giving a speech to 100 hand-picked people, and one of them heckles him, he gets to throw that person out,” said Benjamin, adding that he thought the president had a strong chance of winning an appeal of Buchwald's decision. Buchwald stopped short of ordering Trump to unblock users. Trump had argued that the court did not have the power to issue a direct order against the president. The judge said she disagreed, but that there was no need to get into a "legal thicket" over the issue because she assumed Trump or his social media director Dan Scavino, who also was a defendant in the case, would unblock the users in light of her decision. Cohen said Trump had not yet unblocked him as of late Wednesday afternoon. "Personally, I’m skeptical that he will take that step without more legal pressure," he said.

Trump's blocking of critics on Twitter violates Constitution: US judge

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