Tag: Ruled

Categories
Health

A Federal Judge Ruled That Donald Trump Can't Block Users on Twitter—and of Course Chrissy Teigen Has Thoughts


A federal judge in New York ruled Wednesday that Donald Trump is in violation of the Constitution when he blocks users on Twitter, as he so often does.

In making her ruling, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote that “no government official—including the President—is above the law, and all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared.” She continued, “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.”

In short, Buchwald holds that the “interactive space” where users can engage with the President’s tweets should be considered a public forum and blocking people based on their political viewpoints is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

At least one celebrity critic of Trump is looking forward to interacting with POTUS once more. Chrissy Teigen tweeted a video of herself watching news coverage of the decision with the caption, “Well well well we meet again @realdonaldtrump”.

Trump infamously blocked Teigen last July after a fairly innocuous tweet in which she said, “No one likes you.”

At the time she said, “It’s been a long time coming. I have been very anti-Trump since The Apprentice, like when it first started, so it didn’t start during the presidency like everyone thinks. This goes pretty deep.” But it’s not like she was all that bothered. “I don’t even follow him [on Twitter], so I’m definitely fine being blocked,” she continued. “There’s just this part of me that’s so happy that he had to actually do that. It’s just funny.”

The case that resulted in Wednesday’s ruling was brought to court by the Knight First Amendment Rights Institute of Columbia University on behalf of seven individuals who had been blocked by the @RealDonaldTrump account. “We’re pleased with the court’s decision, which reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles to government censorship on a new communications platform,” Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director, said in a statement on their site.

“The President’s practice of blocking critics on Twitter is pernicious and unconstitutional, and we hope this ruling will bring it to an end.”

It’s not clear at this moment when or how users once blocked will become unblocked. Will it be en masse? One at a time? Is there a prioritized list? We shall have to wait and see.





Source link

Categories
Health

Pale Pink Gowns Ruled the 2018 SAG Awards Red Carpet


Oh, you thought we’d move past the millennial pink trend? Well, it appears celebrities aren’t going to let that happen without getting some last bit of mileage off the trendy hue. At the 2018 SAG Awards, many actresses decided to bring back that familiar shade pink, this time through their red-carpet formalwear. Uzo Aduba did so in chiffon (by Christian Siriano), while Connie Britton and Millie Bobby Brown preferred sequins (by Elisabetta Franchi and Calvin Klein by Appointment, respectively). Thanks to its surprising renaissance on the award show circuit, we’re thinking that the #1 color of 2017 might still carry some weight in 2018. See how seven celebrities wore millennial pink (or pale pink, or light pink—however you call it) at the 2018 SAG Awards.



Source link

Categories
Health

The Supreme Court Just Ruled that Donald Trump's Travel Ban Can Go Into Effect—for Now


As the third and latest iteration of President Donald Trump’s travel ban remains tied up in lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the order can go into effect even amid the continuing legal battles.

Trump issued this most recent order in September, barring certain travelers from Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, Chad, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Six of these eight nations are Muslim-majority countries, and per The New York Times, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco has argued that the ban falls under the President’s “broad constitutional and statutory powers to control immigration.” Though the specifics of the restrictions vary among the eight nations, in most circumstances, citizens will be prohibited from studying, working, vacationing, or permanently relocating to the U.S.

Already, two federal appellate courts in Maryland and Hawaii have blocked major portions of the ban, particularly as they affect travelers who have “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”—like a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother- or sister-in-law, cousin, nephew, niece, or grandchild. In June, Trump’s second travel ban was allowed to go into effect after the Supreme Court reached a compromise and allowed individuals who fell into the “bona fide” category to travel to the U.S. (That version of the ban was only temporary and expired earlier this year.)

But by issuing that third order, Trump attempted to circumvent the standards set in place by the previous ruling. And now, the administration is once again challenging the lower court rulings and brought their latest case to the Supreme Court in an effort to see the newest ban implemented while the appeals process continues.

Two Supreme Court Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor—opposed the White House’s request and did not want to allow the ban to go into effect. As the administration prepares to once again appeal their case, the Supreme Court called on these lower courts to promptly decide on the case so a final ruling could be issued before the Court’s current term ends next June.



Source link

Categories
Health

A Federal Appeals Court Just Ruled That an Undocumented Teen Girl Can Get an Abortion


Following an extensive legal battle, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that an undocumented immigrant teen—who is pregnant and has been held in federally-funded shelter—must be allowed to have an abortion “without delay.”

The 6-3 decision from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturns an earlier ruling from a three-judge panel, and as Judge Patricia A. Millett wrote for the majority, it rights a grave constitutional wrong by the government.”

The 17-year-old girl, known in court documents as “Jane Doe,” found out she was pregnant not long after she crossed the border and was detained. Since September, the teen has been trying to obtain an abortion but has been blocked from doing so by the Trump administration—which has not allowed her to leave the government shelter in which she’s been held in order to obtain the procedure.

But as more time has passed, the more urgent her situation has become. The teen is now over 15 weeks along, and because she entered into Texas upon crossing into the country, she’s been subject to the state’s restrictive abortion laws—which included banning the procedure after 20 weeks and adhering to a mandatory ultrasound and waiting period before a woman can have an abortion. Beyond these measures, Texas also requires minors to obtain parental consent before having an abortion—but a state judge waived this stipulation and gave the girl permission to have the procedure.

However, the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services—the branch that oversees the shelter where the teen has been staying—has a less than progressive stance on abortion rights. As Director Scott Lloyd said in a March email (via The Washington Post), ORR facilities “should not be supporting abortion services pre or post-release; only pregnancy services and life-affirming options counseling.”

The ACLU—who represented the teen—argued that the Trump administration was preventing her from exercising her constitutional rights. Last week, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan asked the administration to grant the teen’s request, saying she was “astounded” that the only choices the teen was being given were to carry her pregnancy to term or return to her home country.

“Just because she’s here illegally doesn’t mean she doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Chutkan said last Wednesday, adding that the girl must be given access to an abortion “promptly and without delay.”

The Department of Justice then filed an appeal last Friday and a three-judge panel decided to give the administration until the end of this month to find an adult sponsor who could assist the teen. The girl’s legal team then asked for a full bench to review the case, saying that time was running out for the girl to have an abortion under Texas state laws and all sponsorship options had been exhausted. On Tuesday, the lower court ruling—dating back to last Wednesday—was reinstated and the girl was given permission to have an abortion.

When the girl will have the procedure is unclear, but many are viewing the ruling as not only a major victory for reproductive rights—but for immigrant rights as well.

“Every step of the way, the Trump administration has shown their true colors in this case,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in a statement.”It’s clear that their anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-immigration agenda is unchecked by basic decency or even the bounds of the law. No one should have to go to court to get a safe, legal abortion.”



Source link