Tag Archives: Court

Turkish opposition lawmaker appeals to European court over referendum

Supporters of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan wave national flags as they wait for his arrival at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, Turkey, April 17, 2017. REUTERS/Umit Bektas

ANKARA (Reuters) – A lawmaker from Turkey’s main opposition CHP said on Friday he had submitted an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights demanding the annulment of a referendum that granted President Tayyip Erdogan sweeping executive powers.

Musa Cam, a lawmaker for the Republican People’s Party (CHP)from the coastal city of Izmir, told Reuters he submitted an individual appeal independently from the one the party is expected to make to the European Court.

In his application, seen by Reuters, Cam said the decision by Turkey’s High Electoral Board (YSK) to allow unstamped ballots in the referendum had caused the outcome to be “illegitimate and not representative of the people’s will”.

Final results released by the YSK on Thursday showed 51.4 percent support for the “Yes” vote to approve the biggest changes to Turkey’s political system in its modern history.

The results, which matched the preliminary figures released in the hours after polling closed on April 16, were released despite calls by the CHP to delay a final announcement while they appealed the vote. The YSK and a Turkish court, the council of state, have rejected or declined to hear the CHP appeals.

Erdogan and the “Yes” camp have said appeals were an attempt to undermine the results of the vote, adding only the YSK had jurisdiction on the matter.

The package of 18 amendments passed in the referendum gives the president the authority to draft the budget, declare a state of emergency and issue decrees overseeing ministries without parliamentary approval.

With the changes, Erdogan will also immediately be eligible to resume membership of a political party.

Erdogan told Reuters on Tuesday that he would rejoin Turkey’s ruling AK Party once the full results came out, and a senior official said he would be named as a candidate to lead it at an extraordinary congress on May 21.

(This version of the article corrects surname of lawmaker)

(Reporting by Gulsen Solaker and Tuvan Gumrukcu)

Russia metro bombing suspect says he was unwitting accomplice

People mourn next to a memorial site for the victims of a blast in St. Petersburg metro, at Tekhnologicheskiy institut metro station in St. Petersburg, Russia, April 4, 2017. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

By Polina Nikolskaya and Hulkar Isamova

MOSCOW/JALAL-ABAD, Kyrgyzstan (Reuters) – The man Russian investigators say orchestrated a suicide bombing on the St Petersburg metro told a court on Tuesday he was an unwitting accomplice in the attack, in which 14 people were killed and scores injured.

Russian investigators said that before the April 3 attack, the suspected suicide bomber, Akbarzhon Jalilov, had spoken by telephone with Abror Azimov, who the investigators said was helping mastermind the attack from a Moscow suburb.

At a preliminary court hearing in Moscow, the suspect, Azimov, said he had participated in the preparation of the attack but only indirectly.

“I did not realize that I was helping with this act,” he said, referring to the April 3 blast. “I was being given instructions.” Dressed in a black jacket and checked shirt, he spoke from a metal cage in the courtroom.

Earlier in the court hearing, a state investigator told the court that Azimov had confessed to having taking part in preparations for the attack, but the suspect said he had not confessed to that.

Since the attack, Russian authorities have detained nine people suspected of involvement. All are originally from Central Asia, a region of five mainly Muslim states that border Afghanistan, Iran and China.

Abror Azimov is originally from the city of Jalal-Abad, in the Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan. His wife said on Tuesday that Azimov and his brother, Akrom, had been working in a sushi restaurant in the Moscow region. He had been due to return home to Kyrgyzstan in April, but did not make the trip.

ISLAMIST TRAINING CAMP?

Her husband was “calm and well-adjusted”, the wife, her head covered by a scarf, told Reuters in Jalal-Abad.

She said his brother Akrom had returned home from Moscow because he was sick, adding that he had been taken from hospital for questioning by Kyrgyz state security.

Russia’s Ren TV broadcaster, citing law enforcement agencies, reported that Azimov, along with the St Petersburg suicide bomber, had attended a radical Islamist training camp. It did not say where the camp was located.

Azimov’s wife and another brother, Bilol, told Reuters he had traveled to Turkey but was only in transit there on his way home after an abortive attempt to find work in South Korea. The family, though Muslims, rarely went to the mosque, Bilol said.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, which happened on a day that Russian President Vladimir Putin was visiting St Petersburg, his native city.

If it is proven that the bombing was carried out by radical Islamists, that could pose a test for Putin’s policy of military intervention in Syria. The Islamic State group has threatened to take revenge for Russian air attacks on Syria by shedding blood on Russian soil.

(Reporting by Polina Nikolskaya; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Vladimir Soldatkin and Gareth Jones)

U.S. top court leaves intact ruling against Central America asylum seekers

A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S., November 15, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Barria - RTX2TTHN

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped a turbulent debate over illegal immigration on Monday, turning away an appeal by a group of asylum-seeking Central American women and their children who aimed to clarify the constitutional rights of people who the government has prioritized for deportation.

The families, 28 women and 33 children ages 2 to 17 from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, had hoped the justices would overturn a lower court’s ruling preventing them from having their expedited removal orders reviewed by a federal judge.

That Philadelphia-based court said the status of the families, all apprehended in Texas and later held in Pennsylvania, was akin to non-citizens who are denied entry at the border and they were not entitled to a court hearing to challenge that decision.

Immigration has become an even hotter topic than usual in the United States since President Donald Trump took office in January. His administration has ordered construction of a border wall with Mexico intended to curb illegal immigration, and plans to expand the number of people targeted for expedited removal, a process that applies to non-citizens lacking valid entry documents.

The families have said they were escaping threats, violence and police authorities unable or unwilling to help in their home countries.

Lead plaintiff Rosa Castro fled El Salvador to escape years of rape, beatings and emotional abuse by the father of her son, who was 6 years old when they arrived in the United States in 2015, according to court papers. Lesly Cruz, who also arrived in 2015, fled Honduras to protect her daughter from sexual assault by members of the Mara Salvatrucha armed gang, the court papers said.

The families were apprehended in Texas within hours of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. After claiming asylum, they were determined by immigration judges to lack “credible fear” of persecution, and placed in expedited removal proceedings.

The families were detained at Berks County Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania, where 12 women and their children remain. The others have been released under orders of supervision, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing them.

The women challenged in federal court the rejection of their asylum claims, alleging a violation of their right to due process under the U.S. Constitution.

In August, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said they may be treated the same way as non-citizens seeking initial admission to the United States, who do not have any constitutional rights of review if denied entry.

The women appealed to the Supreme Court.

There has been a 93 percent drop since December of parents and children caught trying to cross the Mexican border illegally into the United States, which U.S. officials attribute to the Trump administration’s tough policies.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

United passenger launches legal action over forceful removal

A video screengrab shows passenger David Dao being dragged off a United Airlines flight at Chicago O'Hare International Airport in this video filmed by @JayseDavid April 9, 2017. Jayse D. Anspach via REUTERS

By Alana Wise

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Lawyers for the passenger dragged from a United Airlines plane in Chicago filed an emergency request with an Illinois state court on Wednesday to require the carrier to preserve video recordings and other evidence related to the incident.

Citing the risk of “serious prejudice” to their client, Dr. David Dao, the lawyers want United and the City of Chicago, which runs O’Hare International Airport, to preserve surveillance videos, cockpit voice recordings, passenger and crew lists, and other materials related to United Flight 3411.

Chicago’s Aviation Department said on Wednesday that two more officers had been placed on leave in connection with the April 9 incident, during which airport security officers dragged Dao from his seat aboard a United jet headed for Louisville, Kentucky. One officer was placed on leave on Tuesday.

Paul Callan, a civil and criminal trial lawyer in New York, said the public outcry over Dao’s treatment would likely push the airline to a quick and generous settlement.

“Because United has such a catastrophic PR problem, this case has a much greater value than such a case would normally have,” he said.

United Chief Executive Oscar Munoz on Wednesday apologized to Dao, his family and United customers in an ABC News interview, saying the company would no longer use law enforcement officers to remove passengers from overbooked flights.

“This can never, will never happen again,” he said.

Munoz is under pressure to contain a torrent of bad publicity and calls for boycotts against United unleashed by videos that captured Dao’s rough treatment by airline and airport security staff.

Dao was removed to make room for additional crew members, United said.

Footage from the incident shows Dao, bloodied and disheveled, returning to the cabin and repeating: “Just kill me. Kill me,” and “I have to go home.”

As of Tuesday, Dao was still in a Chicago hospital recovering from his injuries, his lawyer said.

On Wednesday, United said it would compensate all passengers on board the flight the cost of their tickets.

Munoz said United would be examining the way it compensates customers who volunteer to give up seats on overbooked planes, adding that it would likely not demand that seated passengers surrender their places.

Some U.S. lawmakers called for new rules that could make it more difficult for airlines to overbook flights as a tool for increasing revenue.

U.S. President Donald Trump said it was “horrible” that Dao was dragged off the flight, according to an interview from the Wall Street Journal. Rather than calling for an end to the practice of overselling, Trump said that instead, there should be no upper limit to incentives carriers can offer passengers in exchange for their seats on overbooked flights.

Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate committee that oversees transportation have questioned United’s actions.

But Delta Air Lines Inc CEO Ed Bastian on Wednesday defended overbooking as “a valid business practice” that does not require additional oversight by the government.

“It’s not a question, in my opinion, as to whether you overbook,” Bastian said on a call with analysts. “It’s how you manage an overbook situation.”

The backlash from the incident resonated around the world, with social media users in the United States, China and Vietnam calling for boycotts of the No. 3 U.S. carrier by passenger traffic and an end to the practice of overbooking flights.

Shares of United Continental closed 1.1 percent lower at $69.93. They fell as much as 4.4 percent on Tuesday.

Two online petitions calling for Munoz to step down as CEO had more than 124,000 signatures combined by Wednesday afternoon. Munoz told ABC he had no plans to resign over the incident.

(Reporting by Alana Wise in New York; Additional reporting by David Shepardson in Washington, and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn and Richard Chang)

Russian court to consider ban on ‘extremist’ Jehovah’s Witnesses HQ

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia’s Supreme Court is to consider whether Jehovah’s Witnesses is an “extremist” organization after the justice ministry applied for an order to shut down the group’s national headquarters near St Petersburg.

The U.S.-founded Jehovah’s Witnesses says it numbers about 8 million people worldwide.

The religious organization is known for its foreign ministries as well as its door-to-door campaigns, but has had problems for years with Russian authorities, who view it as a pernicious cult, an allegation it denies.

Authorities have put several of its publications on a list of banned extremist literature, and prosecutors have long cast it as an organization that destroys families, fosters hatred and threatens lives, a description the organization says is false.

A filing on the Supreme Court’s website said it would convene on April 5 to consider the justice ministry’s application to order the closure of the organization’s Russian headquarters and ban its activity.

The Russian branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses said it rejected the charge it was an extremist organization. It said such a ban would directly affect around 400 of its groups and impact on all of its 2,277 religious groups in Russia which it said united 175,000 followers.

“Millions of believers all over the world consider the ministry’s actions a big mistake,” it said in a statement. “If this lawsuit is successful, it will entail catastrophic consequences for freedom of religious worship in Russia.”

Russian investigators conducted a large-scale inspection of its national headquarters near St. Petersburg earlier this year, carting off many documents.

According to Amnesty International, 16 members of the group in southern Russia were found guilty of organizing and participating in a banned “extremist organization” in late 2015.

Rights activists have criticized Russia for the way it applies a 2006 law which widened the definition of extremism.

(Reporting by Dasha Afanasieva and Andrew Osborn; Editing by Toby Davis)

Courts to hear arguments challenging Trump’s new travel ban

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with U.S. House Deputy Whip team at the East room of the White House in Washington, U.S. March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

By Mica Rosenberg

(Reuters) – Court hearings in Hawaii and Maryland on Wednesday could decide the immediate fate of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, which is set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT) on Thursday.

The courts have been asked in lawsuits challenging the ban to issue restraining orders that would prevent it from taking effect pending resolution of the litigation.

The new order, which temporarily bars the entry of most refugees as well as travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, was signed by the president on March 6, with a 10-day lag before it took effect.

It replaced an earlier, broader order that was signed amid much fanfare a week after Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration. The first order temporarily banned travelers from seven countries in addition to most refugees and took effect immediately, causing chaos and protests at airports across the country and around the globe.

States and civil rights groups filed more than two dozen lawsuits against the first order, arguing it discriminated against Muslims and violated the U.S. Constitution.

In response to a lawsuit by Washington state, a federal judge in Seattle last month issued a nationwide halt to the first order. That decision was upheld by a U.S. appeals court.

The Trump administration made changes in an attempt to address the judges’ concerns. But the states and civil rights groups went back to court arguing the new ban did not solve the problems and should be stopped.

‘WHO WOULD BE HARMED?’

One central question likely to be raised at the hearings is who would be harmed by the new ban. The administration in its new order explicitly exempts legal permanent residents and existing visa holders and provides a series of waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the United States.

While the new order still bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, Iraq is no longer on the list. Refugees are still barred for 120 days, but an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria was deleted.

To succeed, the plaintiffs must show they have “standing” to challenge the ban, which means they must have been harmed by the policy.

If they get past that hurdle, the plaintiffs will argue that both the new ban and the old discriminate on the basis of religion and are unconstitutional.

The Trump administration disputes that allegation, citing as evidence that many Muslim-majority countries are not included in the ban.

In the Hawaii case, the island state says its universities and tourist economy would be harmed by the restrictions on travel.

Hawaii also sued in conjunction with a plaintiff named Ismail Elshikh, an American citizen from Egypt who is an imam at the Muslim Association of Hawaii. Elshikh says his family will be harmed if his mother-in-law, who lives in Syria, is prevented from visiting because of the restrictions.

The government in its response to Hawaii said Elshikh had not been harmed because the ban allows for waivers, and his mother-in-law could apply for one.

In the Maryland case, the American Civil Liberties Union is representing refugee resettlement agencies it says will be hurt by the ban because it affects their operations. The ACLU adds that some of the agencies’ clients are in conflict zones and face imminent danger even if they are only temporarily barred from the United States.

“All of those exemptions and waivers were an effort to shore up this discriminatory order after the fact,” said Cecillia Wang, ACLU deputy legal director told reporters on a conference call with reporters.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York and Dan Levine in Honolulu; Additional reporting by Ian Simpson in Greenbelt, Md.; Editing by Sue Horton and Peter Cooney)

Several states jointly sue to block Trump’s revised travel ban

DAY 46 / MARCH 6: President Donald Trump signed a revised executive order banning citizens from six Muslim-majority nations from traveling to the United States but removing Iraq from the list, after his controversial first attempt was blocked in the courts.

By Mica Rosenberg

(Reuters) – A group of states renewed their effort on Monday to block President Donald Trump’s revised temporary ban on refugees and travelers from several Muslim-majority countries, arguing that his executive order is the same as the first one that was halted by federal courts.

Court papers filed by the state of Washington and joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon asked a judge to stop the March 6 order from taking effect on Thursday.

An amended complaint said the order was similar to the original Jan. 27 directive because it “will cause severe and immediate harms to the States, including our residents, our colleges and universities, our healthcare providers, and our businesses.”

A Department of Justice spokeswoman said it was reviewing the complaint and would respond to the court.

A more sweeping ban implemented hastily in January caused chaos and protests at airports. The March order by contrast gave 10 days’ notice to travelers and immigration officials.

Last month, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle halted the first travel ban after Washington state sued, claiming the order was discriminatory and violated the U.S. Constitution. Robart’s order was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump revised his order to overcome some of the legal hurdles by including exemptions for legal permanent residents and existing visa holders and taking Iraq off the list of countries covered. The new order still halts citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days but has explicit waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the country.

Refugees are still barred for 120 days, but the new order removed an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria.

Washington state has now gone back to Robart to ask him to apply his emergency halt to the new ban.

Robart said in a court order Monday that the government has until Tuesday to respond to the states’ motions. He said he would not hold a hearing before Wednesday and did not commit to a specific date to hear arguments from both sides.

PROVING HARM

Separately, Hawaii has also sued over the new ban. The island state, which is heavily dependent on tourism, said the executive order has had a “chilling effect” on travel revenues.

In response to Hawaii’s lawsuit, the Department of Justice in court papers filed on Monday said the president has broad authority to “restrict or suspend entry of any class of aliens when in the national interest.” The department said the temporary suspensions will allow a review of the current screening process in an effort to protect against terrorist attacks.

There is a hearing in the Hawaii case set for Wednesday, the day before the new ban is set to go into effect.

The first hurdle for the lawsuits will be proving “standing,” which means finding someone who has been harmed by the policy. With so many exemptions, legal experts have said it might be hard to find individuals who would have a right to sue, in the eyes of a court.

To overcome this challenge, the states filed more than 70 declarations of people affected by the order including tech businesses Amazon and Expedia, which said that restricting travel hurts their revenues and their ability to recruit employees.

Universities and medical centers that rely on foreign doctors also weighed in, as did religious organizations and individual residents, including U.S. citizens, with stories about separated families.

But the Trump administration in its filings in the Hawaii case on Monday said the carve-outs in the new order undercut the state’s standing claims.

“The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions,” the Department of Justice’s motion said.

The government cited Supreme Court precedent in arguing that people outside the United States and seeking admission for the first time have “no constitutional rights” regarding their applications.

If the courts do end up ruling the states have standing to sue, the next step will be to argue that both versions of the executive order discriminate against Muslims.

“The Trump Administration may have changed the text of the now-discredited Muslim travel ban, but they didn’t change its unconstitutional intent and effect,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement on Monday.

While the text of the order does not mention Islam, the states claim that the motivation behind the policy is Trump’s campaign promise of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He later toned down that language and said he would implement a policy of “extreme vetting” of foreigners coming to the United States.

The government said the courts should only look at the text of the order and not at outside comments by Trump or his aides.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Grant McCool)

Trump’s revised travel ban dealt first court setback

Immigration activists, including members of the DC Justice for Muslims Coalition, rally against the Trump administration's new ban against travelers from six Muslim-majority nations, outside of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection headquarters in Washington, U.S., March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Eric Thayer

By Steve Gorman

(Reuters) – A federal judge in Wisconsin dealt the first legal blow to President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on Friday, barring enforcement of the policy to deny U.S. entry to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee already granted asylum in the United States.

The temporary restraining order, granted by U.S. District Judge William Conley in Madison, applies only to the family of the Syrian refugee, who brought the case anonymously to protect the identities of his wife and daughter, still living in the war-torn Syrian city of Aleppo.

But it represents the first of several challenges brought against Trump’s newly amended executive order, issued on March 6 and due to go into effect on March 16, to draw a court ruling in opposition to its enforcement.

Conley, chief judge of the federal court in Wisconsin’s western district and an appointee of former President Barack Obama, concluded the plaintiff “has presented some likelihood of success on the merits” of his case and that his family faces “significant risk of irreparable harm” if forced to remain in Syria.

The plaintiff, a Sunni Muslim, fled Syria to the United States in 2014 to “escape near-certain death” at the hands of sectarian military forces fighting the Syrian government in Aleppo, according to his lawsuit.

He subsequently obtained asylum for his wife and their only surviving child, a daughter, and their application had cleared the security vetting process and was headed for final processing when it was halted by Trump’s original travel ban on Jan. 27.

That executive order sought to ban admission to the United States of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq – for 120 days and to suspend entry of all refugees indefinitely.

The original travel ban, which caused widespread chaos and protests at airports when first implemented, was rescinded after the state of Washington won a nationwide federal court order blocking further enforcement of the policy.

The modified executive order reduced the number of excluded counties – removing Iraq from the list – and lifted the indefinite refugee travel ban for Syrians. But opponents from several states have gone to court seeking to halt its implementation as well.

“The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the original executive order, and the revised executive order,” Conley wrote in his decision. “As the order applies to the plaintiff here, however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts.”

In a related development on Friday, the federal judge in Seattle who imposed a nationwide injunction on enforcement of the original travel ban refused a request to apply that order to the revised policy, saying that lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.

(Reporting and writing by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York and Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento, California; Editing by Sandra Maler and Mary Milliken)

U.S. judge orders Florida nightclub shooter’s widow to remain in jail

File Photo: Investigators work the scene following a mass shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando Florida, U.S. June 12, 2016. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/File Photo

By Ian Simpson

(Reuters) – The widow of the gunman who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Florida must remain in jail after prosecutors argued that she was a threat to the community and a flight risk, a U.S. judge on Thursday ordered.

The federal judge in Florida stayed another judge’s order issued on Wednesday that would have released Noor Salman, 30, from a California jail. He put the release order on hold pending further arguments in the case.

Salman was arrested in California in January on federal charges she knew before the June 2016 shootings in Orlando that her husband, Omar Mateen, was planning the attack and concocted a cover story for him.

U.S. District Judge Paul Byron in Orlando ordered Salman detained and set a Wednesday deadline for her lawyers to respond to prosecutors’ arguments that she should be jailed pending her trial in Florida.

Salman is charged with obstructing justice and aiding Mateen in his attempt to provide material support to the Islamic State militant group.

Prosecutors argued in a motion that the seriousness of the charge related to the Islamic State meant Salman should be kept in jail.

“No pretrial release condition or combination of conditions may be imposed to reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance as required or the safety of the community,” they said.

They also said that Salman was a flight risk since she was unemployed and had moved to California, where she has relatives, and had almost no ties to Florida. Her family also owns property in the Middle East, they said.

Charles Swift, Salman’s lawyer, said Byron’s order keeping Salman jailed pending the filing of more motions was routine. “It’s standard,” he said in a telephone interview.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu on Wednesday had cleared the way for Salman’s release and appeared throw doubt on the government’s case against her.

Ryu had ordered her to live with her uncle in Rodeo, California, undergo GPS monitoring and leave home only for court and medical appointments. She set a $500,000 bond.

Mateen was killed in a shootout with police after a standoff at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub and carried out the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Before the shooting he called 911 and swore allegiance to the Islamic State.

(Reporting by Ian Simpson in Washington; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Judge approves release of Florida nightclub shooter’s widow

FILE PHOTO -- Investigators work the scene following a mass shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando Florida, U.S. June 12, 2016. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/File Photo

By Lisa Fernandez

OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) – A judge cleared the way on Wednesday for the widow of the gunman who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, to be released from jail and also appeared to throw doubt on the strength of the government’s case against her.

Noor Salman, 30, was arrested in California in January on federal charges she knew before the June 2016 shootings that her husband, Omar Mateen, was planning the attack and concocted a cover story for him.

Prosecutors want Salman to remain jailed before her trial in Florida. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu said in an Oakland courtroom that the government had not shown Salman was a danger to the community or a serious flight risk.

“I find the weight of the government evidence as debatable,” Ryu added.

Commenting on the prosecutor’s charges against Salman, the judge said: “All the government assertions are hotly debated.”

Salman is charged with obstructing justice and aiding Mateen in his attempt to provide material support to a terrorist organization.

Mateen was killed in a shootout with police after he took hostages during a three-hour standoff at the Pulse nightclub and carried out the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

One of Salman’s lawyers, Linda Moreno, said the approved release “doesn’t usually happen in a so-called terrorism case.”

Ryu gave prosecutors in Florida 48 hours to challenge her ruling, meaning Salman could not walk free from jail until Friday at the earliest.

William Daniels, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Middle District of Florida, said by telephone that prosecutors would file a motion by Friday with a judge in Orlando challenging Salman’s release.

Ryu likened Salman’s release to house arrest, ordering her to live with her uncle in Rodeo, California, and saying she could leave home only for court and medical appointments. Her conditional release will be secured with a $500,000 bond.

Salman’s 4-year-old son with Mateen, who is living with her mother, will be allowed to visit.

Salman, dressed in a red jail uniform, bit her nails during the hearing and looked at the dozen relatives who came in support.

Outside the courtroom, her uncle, Abdallah “Al” Salman, with whom she will live, again declared his niece innocent.

“She does not read between the lines,” he said, reiterating that she has learning disabilities and did not have the capacity to aid in the massacre.

(Reporting by Lisa Fernandez; Writing by Colleen Jenkins; Editing by Peter Cooney and Grant McCool)