Top related persons:
Top related locs:
Top related orgs:

Search resuls for: "Rights Trump"


3 mentions found


Trump's legal team argued against his gag order in his upcoming election interference trial. AdvertisementA panel of three judges on Monday appeared highly skeptical of arguments from Donald Trump's legal team seeking to revoke a gag order that bars him from attacking potential witnesses in his election interference criminal case. Depending on "the context," Lauro argued, Trump would be permitted to pressure possible witnesses not to cooperate with prosecutors. The gag order in the election interference case is separate from a gag order in another ongoing civil trial against Trump in New York. He found that Trump violated it earlier in November, though an appeals court on Thursday temporarily lifted the order.
Persons: Trump, , Donald Trump's, John Lauro, Lauro, Patricia Millet, X, Mike Pence, — Lauro, Tanya Chutkan, they've, Sam Bankman, Cornelia Pillard, Laura, Jack Smith, Mark Meadows, weaklings, Chutkan, MANDEL NGAN, Millet, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Smith, Cecil Woods VanDevender, Bill Barr, We've, Judge Arthur Engoron Organizations: Prosecutors, Service, United States, Appeals, DC Circuit, Trump, US, Capitol, Justice Department, Republican, Getty Locations: New York, FTX, AFP
A federal judge in New York banned Sam Bankman-Fried from using messaging apps that auto-delete texts. Prosecutors said Bankman-Fried used the encryption app Signal to send messages while detained at his parents' home. "I'm far less interested in the defendant's convenience than the risk of deleting messages," Kaplan said at a hearing Thursday. The terms the parties had proposed would have barred Bankman-Fried from using apps like Signal, which encrypt messages and allow users to delete them automatically after a set period of time. Kaplan was also concerned about Bankman-Fried encrypting messages in a way that would keep them out of the hands of prosecutors.
Does a website design company have a First Amendment right to discriminate against same-sex couples? But the Supreme Court reached no conclusion on the free speech claim and instead ruled in favor of the bakery on narrow religious grounds. The challenge here is how to classify 303 Creative’s making or refusing to make a website for same-sex couples. If so, it does not trigger, never mind violate, the free speech clause. It would extend to companies that oppose it for nonreligious reasons but can argue that providing their speech-based services to same-sex couples compelled them to express a message of support for that marriage.
Total: 3