A federal judge dismissed most claims in a lawsuit challenging Connecticut's restrictions on magnet schools, charter schools, and school choice programs, saying there is no fundamental right to equal education opportunity under the U.S. Constitution.

The judge told teachers that the strike could be causing substantial harm to students.

A federal judge threw out the unequal pay claim by players on the U.S. women's national soccer team but allowed their allegation of discriminatory travel accommodations and medical support services to go to trial.

CNA Staff, May 8, 2020 / 12:30 pm (CNA).- A federal judge in Arkansas on Thursday upheld the state’s requirement that women obtain a negative coronavirus test before having an abortion.

Calling the decision “agonizingly difficult,” Judge Brian Miller for the Eastern District Court of Arkansas said the state’s testing mandate—which applies to all elective surgeries and not just abortions—is “reasonable” during the public health emergency and was not done “with an eye toward limiting abortions.

The judge noted that “it is undisputed that surgical abortions have still taken place.”

The abortion clinic Little Rock Family Planning Services had requested a temporary injunction on the state health department’s requirement that elective surgery patients obtain a negative new coronavirus (COVID-19) test result within 48 hours before the procedure.

Previously, the health department ordered a halt to non-essential surgeries on April 3 to preserve resources for treating COVID-19.

The Little Rock abortion clinic performed abortions while claiming they were offering “essential” procedures, and after the health department ordered them to stop on April 10, the clinic challenged the state in court. The diocese’s Respect Life Office noted that women were traveling to the clinic for abortions from nearby states such as Texas and Louisiana.

The clinic won its case for a temporary restraining order at the district court level, but the Eighth Circuit appeals court subsequently overruled that decision and sided with the state.

The April 3 directive was updated April 24 to allow for some elective surgeries provided certain conditions were met. Elective abortions were included in the “non-essential” surgeries that were allowed to continue on April 24.

These conditions included no overnight stays, no contact with COVID-19 patients in the previous 14 days, and a negative COVID-19 test for patients within 48 hours of the surgery.

According to the clinic, which asked for a temporary injunction, three women were seeking to obtain “dilation and evacuation” abortions but were prevented from meeting the state’s testing requirmenet. One woman said she was unable to get a COVID-19 test; another said the lab could not guarantee she would receive results in 48 hours. The third woman was unable to get an abortion in Texas, and drove to the Little Rock clinic; she was told the results of her test would not be available for several days.

In response, the state’s health department said that four surgical abortions had still been performed at the clinic between April 27 and May 1, with COVID-19 test results having been obtained within 48 hours of the abortions, and thus the directive was not an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion.

In his decision on Thursday, Judge Miller said that the pandemic is a serious threat, noting that at the time of the opinion more than 70,000 people had died in the U.S. from the virus including more than 3,500 people in Arkansas.

He said the case “presents the tug-of-war between individual liberty and the state’s police power to protect the public during the existing, grave health crisis,” and noted that the three women as well as others “are very troubled. There is a strong urge to rule for them because they are extremely sympathetic figures, but that would be unjust.”

CNA Staff, May 8, 2020 / 12:30 pm (CNA).- A federal judge in Arkansas on Thursday upheld the state’s requirement that women obtain a negative coronavirus test before having an abortion.

Calling the decision “agonizingly difficult,” Judge Brian Miller for the Eastern District Court of Arkansas said the state’s testing mandate—which applies to all elective surgeries and not just abortions—is “reasonable” during the public health emergency and was not done “with an eye toward limiting abortions.

The judge noted that “it is undisputed that surgical abortions have still taken place.”

The abortion clinic Little Rock Family Planning Services had requested a temporary injunction on the state health department’s requirement that elective surgery patients obtain a negative new coronavirus (COVID-19) test result within 48 hours before the procedure.

Previously, the health department ordered a halt to non-essential surgeries on April 3 to preserve resources for treating COVID-19.

The Little Rock abortion clinic performed abortions while claiming they were offering “essential” procedures, and after the health department ordered them to stop on April 10, the clinic challenged the state in court. The diocese’s Respect Life Office noted that women were traveling to the clinic for abortions from nearby states such as Texas and Louisiana.

The clinic won its case for a temporary restraining order at the district court level, but the Eighth Circuit appeals court subsequently overruled that decision and sided with the state.

The April 3 directive was updated April 24 to allow for some elective surgeries provided certain conditions were met. Elective abortions were included in the “non-essential” surgeries that were allowed to continue on April 24.

These conditions included no overnight stays, no contact with COVID-19 patients in the previous 14 days, and a negative COVID-19 test for patients within 48 hours of the surgery.

According to the clinic, which asked for a temporary injunction, three women were seeking to obtain “dilation and evacuation” abortions but were prevented from meeting the state’s testing requirmenet. One woman said she was unable to get a COVID-19 test; another said the lab could not guarantee she would receive results in 48 hours. The third woman was unable to get an abortion in Texas, and drove to the Little Rock clinic; she was told the results of her test would not be available for several days.

In response, the state’s health department said that four surgical abortions had still been performed at the clinic between April 27 and May 1, with COVID-19 test results having been obtained within 48 hours of the abortions, and thus the directive was not an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion.

In his decision on Thursday, Judge Miller said that the pandemic is a serious threat, noting that at the time of the opinion more than 70,000 people had died in the U.S. from the virus including more than 3,500 people in Arkansas.

He said the case “presents the tug-of-war between individual liberty and the state’s police power to protect the public during the existing, grave health crisis,” and noted that the three women as well as others “are very troubled. There is a strong urge to rule for them because they are extremely sympathetic figures, but that would be unjust.”

An Illinois judge has dismissed the nation's first class-action lawsuit against a state high school association over its handling of concussions, ruling that it had made strides in that regard since the filing of the lawsuit.

A Los Angeles judge ruled that a teenage football player may proceed to trial against the national Pop Warner organization, four years after he suffered an on-field injury that left him a quadriplegic.

Our judgments and biases are preventing students, and adults, from succeeding, and here are seven examples of when that happens.

The rule requires states to use a standard method in determining if districts are biased in how they identify minority students, discipline them, or place them in restrictive settings.

D. Brooks Smith, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, will deliver the Penn State Law in University Park 2020 commencement address on May 16 in Eisenhower Auditorium.

By Bishop Arthur Serratelli

On January 18, 2019, a video of Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann went viral. He was at the Lincoln Memorial standing face to face with a Native American man during the March to Life in Washington, D.C. On the basis of that picture, a frenzy of condemnations from reporters, commentators and politicians were heaped upon this student, accusing him of prejudice and hatred. Misinformation and lies spread like wild fire. Finally, when the facts were uncovered, the high school student was exonerated of any wrong-doing, even though much wrong had been done to him and his family. It was a rush to judgment. 

On January 29, 2019, American actor and singer Jussie Smollett reported that two masked men attacked him at 2 AM near his apartment in Chicago. He claimed that the attack was racist and homophobic. After Smollett’s initial report, friends and fans, celebrities and politicians expressed outrage at this hate crime. Twitter and Instagram fueled the frenzy of self-righteous indignation. However, in just three weeks, it was discovered that the whole event had been orchestrated by Smollett. Yet, before the facts were fully known, there was the rush to judgment and much chatter.

Gifted with reason, we are wired to make judgments. Discerning the good from the bad, the beautiful from the ugly, the right from the wrong, and virtue from vice: this is an essential part of our being human. However, every judgment must be founded on truth, not rumor; on fact, not fiction; on substance, not appearance. And every judgment must always be tempered with compassion. Albeit from opposite directions, the Sandmann and Smollett incidents show how quick we are to believe or disbelieve, to accuse or defend and how easily we pick a side and draw a line in the sand. And, all the while, truth grows ever more fragile.

Today’s rush to judgment gathers speed along the newly constructed digital highway. We get information instantaneously and, because we want solutions just as fast, we are quick to judge. As a result of this incessant communication about other people’s lives, we live on the edge between truth and falsehood. What years ago was whispered between a few people now goes viral and can never be retrieved. As a result, in this environment, deliberately passing on stories that destroy other people’s good names is nothing less than cyber bullying.

There is no area of modern society that is exempt from someone passing on false information, half-truths or blatant, deliberate lies. In a society of fast-paced information sharing, gossip has become so commonplace that people justify it as a way to right wrongs, correct others and unseat those whom they deem unfit for their chosen work. However, unlike the surgeon’s scalpel that removes the cancer, gossip is the arrow that destroys the other. 

As a statement sometimes attributed to Mark Twain says, “a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots.” In a similar vein, Jonathan Swift once wrote, “if a lie be believ’d only for an hour, it has done its work, and there is no further occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it; so that, when men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late…the tale has had its effect” (Jonathan Swift, The Examiner, Number 15, November, 1710).  For this reason, people of good faith should be slow to judge others. And never should they gossip. People who constantly judge or criticize others truly lack compassion.

Sadly, making negative judgments on others on the basis of appearances and then spreading those judgments to others is found among those who consider themselves Church-going people. It is especially found among those who set themselves as crusaders for a just cause and, then by their lack of charity, become unjust themselves. The fondness to judge and criticize others may well be a way of not facing one’s own sins. "It is often easier or more convenient to see and condemn the faults and sins of others than it is to see our own” (Pope Francis, Angelus, March 3, 2019).

In speech after speech, Pope Francis has been courageously warning us of the evil of gossip. “Gossip is a weapon and it threatens the human community every day; it sows envy, jealousy and power struggles… We might welcome someone and speak well of him the first day but little by little that worm eats away at our minds until our gossip banishes him from good opinion. That person in a community who gossips against his or her neighbor is, in a sense, killing him.” (Pope Francis, Homily, Domus Sanctae Marthae, September 2, 2013).  

Few things can match the harmful effects of gossip, whether it be slander or detraction. Defamation inflicts grave harm on the individual and destroys the community. It is against charity and, since God is love, it is against God himself. Charles Spurgeon, one of the most popular Baptist preachers of the 19th century, summed up the evil of talking about other people by saying, “the tale-bearer carries the devil in his tongue, and the tale-hearer carries the devil in his ear.” Gossip makes the devil laugh!

US President Donald Trump on Monday nominated an Indian-American attorney to a federal court in New York.

Governor Markell ordered flags to be lowered between March 7 and 11 as a mark of respect for the passing of former Delaware Judge and civil rights leader Leonard Williams.

Governor Markell has ordered the American and Delaware flags lowered on Thursday, October 22, in honor of Family Court Judge Alan N. Cooper and his many years of public service to the State of Delaware.

Delaware Harness Racing Commission Executive Director, Mark Davis announced today that the Commission has named Brian Manges, Presiding Judge, and two Associate Judges, Norman Short and Brent McLaren, to the judges’ stand.

A document seen by SaharaReporters has exposed how serving and retired Nigerian judges are illegally preparing ways for their children and relatives to take over the country’s judicial system in future.

According to the document put together by Open Bar Initiative, out of the 33 names recently recommended to President Muhammadu Buhari by the National Judiciary Council for appointment as judges in the Federal Capital Territory High Court, only 11 met the criteria set out in the employment guideline of the council.

The NJC had on April 26, 2020 approved the appointment of 33 judges for the FCT High Court.

SaharaReporters gathered that 22 out of the 33 candidates presented to President Buhari made the list only because they were related to serving senior members of the judiciary or close aides and members of the NJC. 

Also, states that already have judges in the FCT High Court were reconsidered and given slots while no one was considered qualified for appointment in Ebonyi, a state that has no existing judge.

Section 255 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), pegged qualification for becoming a judge in the High Court of the FCT to a minimum of 10 years qualification as a legal practitioner. 

Also Rule 4 of the NJC appointment of judges’ procedure, indicated only four classes of lawyers, who are qualified to apply and be recommended to be appointed as judges of a high court.

These are legal practitioners in private practice, legal practitioners in public service, who are legal officers, chief registrar of a court, and chief magistrates.

Those listed in the document seen by SaharaReporters among the 33 nominees to be considered as judges by President Buhari but, who are not qualified include Njideka K. Nwosu-Iheme, a Grade 1 Magistrate, who is the daughter of Justice Mary Odili of the Supreme Court and daughter-in-law to Justice Nwosu-Iheme of the Court of Appeal, Agashieze Cyprian Odinaka, a Deputy Director at FCTA whose sister is the Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal in Akure, Ondo State, Fatima Abubakar Aliyu, a judiciary worker, who is the daughter of immediate-past President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Bulkachuwa, Kanyip Rosemary Indinya, a senior magistrate at FCT and wife of the President of the National Industrial Court and sister of a member of the National Judicial Council.

Others are Mimi Anne Katsina Alu-Apena, a senior magistrate and daughter of late Kastina Alu, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Enenche Eleojo, Assistant Director at FCT High Court and Personal Assistant to the Chief Judge, FCT High Court, Madugu Mohammed Alhaji, Josephine Obanor Enobie, Kayode Agunloye, Nwabulu Ngozika Chineze and Abubakar Babashani, who are senior staff of the FCT High Court but have not attained the rank of chief registrar as stipulated by the constitution.

The list also includes one one Aliyu Halilu Ahmed, a Deputy Chief Registrar from Adamawa State judiciary, who has not attained the rank of a chief registrar.

The rest are Aminu Muhammad Abdullahi, Nwecheonwu Chinyere Elewe, Ibrahim Mohammed, Sadia Mu’azu Mayana, Aliyu Yunusa Shafa, Mohammed Zubairu, Binta Dogonyaro, Christopher Opeyemi Oba and Hafsat Lawan Abba-Aliyu, all magistrates from the FCT judiciary, who are not up to the rank of a chief magistrate as stipulated in Rule 4 of the NJC appointment of judges procedure.

SaharaReporters also gathered that one Olufola Olufolashade Oshin did not participate in the processes leading up to selection, interview or obtaining recommendation from a Chief Judge of a state but her name was inserted into the final list transmitted to President Buhari at the instigation of some senior judicial officers believed to be top members of the Supreme Court.

Reacting to the development, Open Bar Initiative said, “The suggestion that judicial service in Nigeria is an inheritance transmitted from parents to children is not supported by the constitution or any other instrument under Nigerian law. 

“This is an abuse of the constitution by those who must nominate judges for appointment.”

Co-convener of Open Bar Initiative and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission in Nigeria, Prof Chidi Odinkalu, while reacting to the situation, said, “These are not just unqualified nominees, they are bad nominees because only bad people will want to become judges through smuggling. They will make bad judges, we should resist them and their sponsors.”

Voicing his displeasure on Twitter, a user with the handle @AbdulMahmud01, said, “Have you seen the list of newly appointed FCT judges approved by NJC? It is a parade of children of former CJN, retired Supreme Court justices and judges. NJC is simply put: a corrupt council of corrupt interests.”

Another user, @KennyAdazie, while sharing her thoughts on the issue, said, “The only people that can take back Nigeria are the youth. 

“If we don’t come out to stop this madness, the charade will continue. When they strategically place their own, they pave way for #impunities and come 2023, there is nothing you can do! The reason our legal system is in ruins.”

On 28 April 2020, the Russian President issued Decree No. 294 On Prolonging Measures To Ensure Sanitary and Epidemiological Wellbeing of the Population in the Russian Federation due to the Spread of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). The following da...

The Facebook “Like” button and similar social media plugin technologies (Plugin) are now so commonplace that we perhaps don’t give them a second thought. Plugins provide an easy way for consumers to connect instantly with a preferr...

Court turns down alleged Caruana Galizia assassination mastermind's request to have compilation of evidence continue 

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on September 16, 2015. -ed.

Love, don’t judge.

For many people in the church, that simple slogan has become the kneejerk defense in the face of criticism and confrontation. At some point, believers decided that careful discernment and agapē love are diametrically opposed; that judgment is always a threat to our unity in Christ. And with no regard for the quality or content of the exhortation, too many Christians speedily deploy Matthew 7:1 as an all-purpose, get-out-of-jail-free card: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.”

Writing thirty years ago in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel, John MacArthur explained how that verse is routinely misapplied as a shield against confrontation and conflict in the church.

This passage has erroneously been used to suggest that believers should never evaluate or criticize anyone for anything. Our day hates absolutes, especially theological and moral absolutes, and such simplistic interpretation provides a convenient escape from confrontation. Members of modern society, including many professing Christians, tend to resist dogmatism and strong convictions about right and wrong. Many people prefer to speak of all-inclusive love, compromise, ecumenism, and unity. To the modern religious person those are the only “doctrines” worth defending, and they are the doctrines to which every conflicting doctrine must be sacrificed. ^[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7 (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1985), 430.

In the intervening decades, the church’s appetite for criticism, conflict, and confrontation has only further diminished. And in that same time, the misunderstanding and misapplication of this verse and others like it (cf. Luke 6:37; John 3:17) has taken root in the church, skewing its perspective on discipline and judgment, and insulating its people from rebuke and exhortation.

In fact, many in the church today behave as if confrontation and discerning judgment are forbidden. Any confrontation—whether it’s a question of personal holiness or doctrinal disagreement—is seen as prideful overstepping and an attack on the unity of God’s people. As John MacArthur explains,

In many circles, including some evangelical circles, those who hold to strong convictions and who speak up and confront society and the church are branded as violators of this command not to judge, and are seen as troublemakers or, at best, as controversial. ^[2] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 431.

But Matthew 7:1 has nothing to do with avoiding conflict in favor of unity, or ignoring doctrinal or moral error in the name of love. As with many of the abused verses we’ll examine in this series, a simple look at the context makes the original intent of Christ’s words abundantly clear.

The seventh chapter of Matthew’s gospel represents the end of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount—His most extensive teaching on living as a citizen of the kingdom of God. Woven throughout that sermon is an exposé of the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of His day. Jesus upends the system of works-righteousness they had inflicted on God-fearing people throughout Israel.

During Christ’s life and ministry, the Jewish faith had been reduced to a heavy-handed list of dos and don’ts. The religious elite had obliterated God’s original intent in giving His law to His people, replacing it with a burdensome system of works righteousness. And they held the entire nation to their corrupt, man-made standard.

In his commentary, John MacArthur explains how the focus of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount makes it clear that the Lord was not prohibiting judgment, but promoting discernment.

If this greatest sermon by our Lord teaches anything, it teaches that His followers are to be discerning and perceptive in what they believe and in what they do, that they must make every effort to judge between truth and falsehood, between the internal and the external, between reality and sham, between true righteousness and false righteousness—in short, between God’s way and all other ways. ^[3] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 431.

With that in mind, the prohibition against judgment takes on completely different nuance. Christ was condemning a very specific kind of self-righteous judgment—the kind we see on display in His parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector.

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)

Like many professing believers today, the Pharisees put on a good show of public holiness, and loved looking down on anyone who didn’t. As John explains,

Jesus here is talking about the self-righteous, egotistical judgment and unmerciful condemnation of others practiced by the scribes and Pharisees. Their primary concern was not to help others from sin to holiness, but to condemn them to eternal judgment because of actions and attitudes that did not square with their own worldly, self-made traditions. ^[4] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 432.

Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1 were a reminder to the religious elite that they were not the final judges—that they too would stand before God, and that they would not want to be held to their own rigorous, self-righteous standard (Matthew 7:2). Believers today need to heed that warning as well, and avoid the same kind of hypocritical hubris regarding our own holiness, and how it corresponds to other believers’.

We also need to consider how to biblically discern, confront, and rebuke when necessary. Fortunately for us, Christ addressed that very issue in His subsequent statements.

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)

Confrontation and criticism are not forbidden in the church, but they must be undergirded with humility and purity. We need to humbly submit to the Lord, shining the light of His Word into the dark corners of our own hearts instead of arrogantly pointing it in someone else’s face. It’s only when we’ve dealt faithfully and biblically with our own sin that we can help a brother see his own. And as John explains, even in the midst of confrontation, we need to maintain a spirit of humility.

All confrontation of sin in others must be done out of meekness, not pride. We cannot play the role of judge—passing sentence as if we were God. We cannot play the role of superior—as if we were exempt from the same standards we demand of others. We must not play the hypocrite—blaming others while we excuse ourselves. ^[5] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 437.

We do a great disservice to the Body of Christ when we confront and judge one another in arrogance and self-righteousness. But, as John MacArthur writes, we also do damage to the church if we fail to exercise godly judgment and discernment when it’s warranted.

There is also danger, however, even for the truly humble and repentant believer. The first danger . . . is of concluding that we have no right to oppose wrong doctrine or wrong practices in the church, lest we fall into judgmental self-righteousness. We will then not be willing to confront a sinning brother as the Lord clearly calls us to do. The second danger is closely related to the first. If we are afraid to confront falsehood and sin in the church, we will be inclined to become undiscriminating and undiscerning. The church, and our own lives, will become more and more in danger of corruption. Realizing the impact of sin in the assembly (1 Peter 4:15), Peter made a powerful call for a confrontive, critical church when he said, “For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God” (1 Peter 4:17). Believers must be discerning and make proper judgment when it is required. ^[6] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7, 437.

Discernment does not have to lead to division. If we faithfully follow the pattern Christ gave us, we will be able to confront one another out of love and humility, not arrogance and self-righteousness. And we’ll be able to humbly accept the input of others without rushing to defensive arguments and judgmental retaliation.

Disqualified lawmaker Lau Siu-lai was denied the opportunity to respond to allegations of not genuinely upholding Hong Kong’s mini-constitution before she was barred from trying to win back her seat in the Legislative Council, a judge has observed.Mr Justice Anderson Chow Ka-ming made the remark on Thursday while hearing an election petition from Lau, who has asked the High Court to determine whether pro-establishment lawmaker Chan Hoi-yan had been duly elected to the office of Kowloon West…

ISLAMABAD: The Anti-Terrorist Court Friday rejected the bail of approver in Judge Arshad Malik video scandal case. The accused, Faisal Shaheen, allegedly made the controversial video of former...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

ISLAMABAD: The Anti-Terrorist Court Friday rejected the bail of approver in Judge Arshad Malik video scandal case.The accused, Faisal Shaheen, allegedly made the controversial video of former...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

ISLAMABAD: The Anti-Terrorist Court Friday rejected the bail of approver in Judge Arshad Malik video scandal case.The accused, Faisal Shaheen, allegedly made the controversial video of former...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday reserved its judgement on a petition filed against the National Database and Registration Authority’s (Nadra) notification of revoking the citizenship of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) leader Hafiz Hamdullah.

Nadra in its written reply referred to intelligence reports claiming that Mr Hamdullah is not a Pakistani national.

On Oct 11 last year, Mr Hamdullah lost his citizenship when Nadra declared him an ‘alien’.

Subsequently, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) banned his appearance on TV channels.

As per the Oct 26 Pemra directive, Nadra had in a letter dated Oct 11 conveyed that “Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor is ‘confirmed alien’ as he is not a citizen of Pakistan”.

It further said Nadra had “cancelled and digitally impounded” the CNIC [computerised national identity card] issued to Mr Hamdullah.

“Since it is established that the said person is an ‘alien’, all the TV channels (news and current affairs) are directed to refrain from inviting and projecting Mr Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor in their programmes/talk shows, news, etc,” the authority said in its letter.

In October, JUI-F leader lost his citizenship when Nadra declared him an ‘alien’

Nadra took the stance before the IHC that the intelligence agencies claimed that Mr Hamdullah’s credentials were also fake and subsequently his computerised national identity card had been cancelled.

Mr Hamdullah, who was a senator from Balochistan between March 2012 and March 2018, frequently makes appearances in evening talk shows on different news channels.

The directive banning his TV appearances came at a time when the JUI-F’s Azadi March was about to start.

Advocate Kamran Murtaza, who filed a petition on behalf of Mr Hamdullah, informed the court that the petitioner was born in the province of Balochistan and that his father, children and other family members also held CNICs. One of Mr Hamdullah’s children is serving in the armed forces of the country as a commissioned officer.

According to the petition, Mr Hamdullah has also remained member of the Balochistan Assembly and “Nadra is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the citizenship of citizen which otherwise has to be dealt with the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. It shows that Nadra’s order was issued without any lawful authority,” the petition said.

IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, after hearing the arguments of petitioner’s counsel and other respondents, reserved the judgement.

Published in Dawn, May 9th, 2020

A U.S. federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett who accused the city of Chicago of malicious prosecution in concluding that his claim to having been the victim of a racist and homophobic beating was a hoax.

The notoriously independent-minded federal judge who once said he was disgusted by the conduct of Michael Flynn could block the administration's bid to drop criminal charges against the former adviser to President Donald Trump, legal experts said.

Newly released FBI documents suggest a federal judge in Washington was swayed by apparent misrepresentations from a top prosecutor when he issued a memorandum opinion in December 2019 -- a ruling that marked one of the lowest points in former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn's effort to withdraw a guilty plea on a charge of lying to investigators.

Coronavirus illnesses to date may touch as little as 4 percent of meat and poultry employment, but it been enough to roil the industry over how much protection the plants need to be safe. Actions taken in tight proximity to one another by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and U.S. District Court Judge Greg... Continue Reading

Chief Justice John G. Roberts on Friday declined to order a judicial misconduct investigation into a federal judge's retirement and whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had anything to do with it.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sri Srinavasan had previously asked the chief justice to assign a court ...

Campaigners welcomed Wednesday’s ruling as a victory for tribal rights and environmental protection

The controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has been dealt a major setback, after a judge revoked a key permit issued by the US army corps of engineers without properly assessing the impact on endangered species.

In a legal challenge brought by a coalition of environmental groups, a federal judge in Montana ordered the army corps to suspend all filling and dredging activities until it conducts formal consultations compliant with the Endangered Species Act.

Coronavirus: the symptoms Read our LIVE updates on the coronavirus here

Florida judge Dennis Bailey said it was "remarkable" that many attorneys appear inappropriately on camera for hearings using the Zoom video conferencing app.

Cumbria Police have apologised for an "ill-judged" tweet that suggested people should not buy plants or compost during the coronavirus lockdown.

Popular TV judge tells Hollywood A-listers to 'simply shut up' in impassioned rant on ITV's This Morning