吃瓜大本营

BANGOR, Maine 鈥� On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine allowed the central claims in Smith v. Trump to move forward, rejecting the Trump administration鈥檚 effort to dismiss two U.S. human rights advocates鈥� challenge to President Trump鈥檚 sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court (ICC). In July 2025, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the administration from punishing human rights advocates Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan for their communications with the ICC. The Trump administration then asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. On Monday, the court refused. The court鈥檚 order allows the human rights experts鈥� claims to proceed. 鈥淚n my work, I help the ICC investigate hideous crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including mass murder, torture, and human trafficking,鈥� said Matthew Smith, founder and CEO of Fortify Rights. 鈥淭his Executive Order undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors.鈥� Under Executive Order 14203, people in the U.S. who鈥檝e devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities 鈥� like the genocide of Myanmar鈥檚 Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban 鈥� could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from communicating with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. 鈥淰ictims of the Taliban鈥檚 oppression can鈥檛 rely on their own courts for justice. That鈥檚 why they turn to the ICC, and why it's so important for me to be able to partner with them in their fight for justice and accountability,鈥� said Akila Radhakrishnan, an international human rights lawyer. 鈥淚鈥檓 bringing this suit to prevent my own government from punishing me for trying to hold the Taliban accountable for its systematic violence against women and girls from Afghanistan.鈥� Monday鈥檚 order is not a final ruling on whether the restrictions imposed by the sanctions violate the law. Nevertheless, the court wrote that it had enough to conclude, on the record before it, that 鈥渢here is a strong likelihood the EO violated Plaintiffs鈥� First Amendment rights.鈥� The court also wrote that, under the human rights experts鈥� 鈥渞easonable interpretation,鈥� the executive order was 鈥渋ncompatible鈥� with the federal statute the administration invoked as authority for the sanctions. The court also rejected the administration鈥檚 arguments that the human rights experts lacked standing and that their claims were not ready for review. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 attempt to dismiss our clients鈥� claims was both predictable and meritless,鈥� said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with ACLU鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he First Amendment doesn鈥檛 allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to. We鈥檙e pleased our clients can continue their important work, and we look forward to continuing to vindicate their rights in court.鈥� The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude 鈥� including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes 鈥� when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC鈥檚 founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC鈥檚 critical work on a wide range of matters. 鈥淥ur clients鈥� human rights work is protected by the First Amendment, and the court鈥檚 ruling affirms that the executive order is an unlawful ban on that important work,鈥� said Anahita Sotoohi, staff attorney at the ACLU of Maine. 鈥淲e are pleased that our clients can continue their activism while the case is pending.鈥� This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the ACLU and ACLU of Maine.

TALLAHASSEE 鈥� At Tuesday鈥檚 Florida Cabinet meeting, Gov. Ron DeSantis and other state officials followed through on their campaign to designate two leading Muslim civil rights nonprofits as 鈥渄omestic terrorist organizations.鈥� The groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its state chapter, CAIR-Florida, filed a lawsuit challenging the baseless designation in federal court in early July. At a Cabinet meeting in which Gov. DeSantis and four Cabinet members voted on the designation, counsel with the ACLU stood up and asked Gov. DeSantis for an opportunity to speak on behalf of CAIR and CAIR Florida. According to a new emergency rule to implement the Florida law, the Governor and Cabinet have sole discretion to decide whether an organization to be designated can present arguments against designation. Notice and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental due process requirements. Gov. DeSantis did not acknowledge and spoke over the ACLU鈥檚 request, said he heard no objections from the Cabinet, and approved the designation. The entire vote consideration took thirty seconds. On behalf of CAIR and CAIR-Florida, the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP plan to file an amended complaint and an emergency motion to stop the designations from becoming effective. If the designation does go into effect, the groups will be forced to shut down their operations in the state under threat of severe criminal penalties against them as well as their employees, board members, volunteers, and other stakeholders in Florida. 鈥淎s I wanted to explain before the Cabinet voted to designate our clients, Gov. DeSantis鈥檚 use of Florida鈥檚 dangerous new 鈥渢errorism鈥� designation regime against CAIR and its Florida chapter is baseless and unconstitutional,鈥� said Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭here are simply no legitimate grounds to brand our clients with a reviled label, impose crippling criminal penalties, and force them to shut their doors in Florida. As the country's leading Muslim civil rights group, CAIR is being targeted not because it poses a threat to public safety, but because doing so serves a political agenda at the expense of Floridians' rights. CAIR and all U.S. nonprofits have the right to criticize the government, protect religious freedom, and advocate for the causes they believe in. We look forward to vindicating our clients鈥� rights in court.鈥� If the courts do not intervene, the designation will become effective on November 5.

On September 21, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief in the District of Nevada in support of Jason Killinger, a man wrongfully arrested after police relied on an incorrect result from facial recognition technology.

NEW YORK - In remembrance of the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement: 鈥淭wenty-five years after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the ACLU remembers the victims, their families, and all of those impacted. We pay particular tribute to John William Perry, a New York Police Department officer, lawyer, and longtime member of the Nassau County Chapter board of the New York Civil Liberties Union who tragically died in the rescue effort. "The lessons of the post-9/11 era apply to the abuses of power we face today. Immediately following the attacks, the ACLU urged government leaders to respond justly and in accordance with the safeguards enshrined in our Constitution. 鈥淚nstead, successive presidents claimed expansive power that eroded many of our fundamental freedoms. U.S. leaders authorized torture and indefinite detention, launched illegal wars, warrantlessly surveilled Americans, and signed off on other horrific human rights violations. The Patriot Act was rubber-stamped by a Congress too afraid to ask the tough questions. And the courts all too often abdicated their role in our system of checks and balances and deferred to the executive. 鈥淵et, thanks to the tireless work of civil liberties and civil rights organizations, human rights groups, investigative journalists, and the communities who were at the center of the harm, some of the worst abuses of that era came to light 鈥� and some of them ended. Other abuses continue to this day: Notably, key provisions within the Patriot Act are still the law of the land, and the government is still prosecuting individuals through a military commission process that has never worked and will never render true justice. "As we challenge the Trump administration's daily assault on our civil liberties and civil rights, we remain steadfast in the knowledge that our nation鈥檚 true strength lies in its people, an independent judiciary, and our commitment to due process. 鈥淭he tragedy of 9/11 taught us that adherence to the rule of law is what makes this country great. Twenty-five years ago, we learned that we ought not forfeit our civil liberties in the face of government officials who are abusing their power. That lesson is doubly relevant today.鈥�