吃瓜大本营

TALLAHASSEE 鈥� On Friday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR-Florida told a federal court that their civil rights work in Florida is in imminent danger after Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Cabinet officials baselessly voted to designate them as 鈥渄omestic terrorist organizations鈥� under an unconstitutional new state law. They asked the court for emergency relief to block the designation from going into effect. The filing comes in a new lawsuit the groups filed after the Florida Cabinet鈥檚 vote. 鈥淔or decades, we and CAIR-Florida have pursued a shared mission, rooted in faith, to help people understand Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower the millions of American Muslims across the country,鈥� said CAIR. 鈥淕ov. DeSantis and other officials in his cabinet have spent months targeting us for our beliefs and civil rights work for months. If this unjustifiable designation is allowed to go into effect, our speech will be silenced, our advocacy will be halted, and our doors will be shut in Florida. This harms not only CAIR and CAIR-Florida, but all Floridians who believe in a vibrant constitutional democracy where people of all religious traditions can thrive.鈥� Under HB 1471, five Florida executive officials have the power to designate and debilitate U.S. groups鈥攊ncluding nonprofits engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy鈥攚ithout filing charges, initiating judicial proceedings, proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, submitting the case to a jury, or complying with any of the other constitutional requirements of the criminal legal system. As the lawsuit explains, 鈥淭he new regime transforms Florida鈥檚 Governor, Chief of Domestic Security, and Cabinet into judge, jury, and nonprofit executioner.鈥� Once designated, an elaborate set of prohibitions makes it a serious crime for the targeted American organization to do virtually anything in the state, and for others to work for or otherwise actively associate with it. The consequences of violating these prohibitions are severe, including up to life imprisonment. As a result of designation, an organization鈥檚 lawful, constitutionally protected speech and association are immediately rendered illegal and impossible鈥攕imply because a handful of state o铿僣ials say so. 鈥淲e鈥檙e asking for urgent judicial intervention to prevent CAIR and CAIR-Florida from becoming the first casualties of Florida鈥檚 unconstitutional and draconian new law,鈥� said Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Constitution does not allow officials to punish U.S. organizations and deny them due process because of disagreement with their views, yet Florida鈥檚 Governor and Cabinet did so anyway. It鈥檚 hard to overstate the stakes here, not only for our clients, but also for other nonprofits and corporations that Florida officials may decide they dislike and want to target in the future.鈥� CAIR and CAIR-Florida initially challenged their designation under the new Florida law in a suit filed on July 1, the day the law went into effect, and Gov. DeSantis said he and other Cabinet officials would move quickly to designate CAIR. On October 1, the court dismissed their initial case, finding that the nonprofits did not have standing in July because their fears of harm were speculative. Hours later, counsel for CAIR and CAIR-Florida filed a new complaint, explaining that Gov. DeSantis and other Cabinet members had followed through on their threats and voted to designate CAIR and CAIR-Florida on September 29, 2026. The complaint makes clear that this designation violates the non-profits鈥� First Amendment rights, as well as their right to due process and right to counsel. Targeted organizations receive no meaningful notice and have no meaningful opportunity to defend themselves before the designation and harsh penalties take effect. Florida鈥檚 law is also preempted by federal law. 鈥淲ithout evidence, fair notice, or any opportunity to respond, Florida officials have arbitrarily and unjustly branded CAIR and CAIR-Florida with the scarlet letter of a 'DTO' designation, effectively rendering them pariahs.鈥� said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director, Southern Poverty Law Center. 鈥淭his designation is a political act that violates the First Amendment and due process rights of two nonprofit organizations that have served Floridians for more than 25 years. If state officials can do this to CAIR and CAIR-Florida with impunity, they can do it to any organization whose message they dislike.鈥� The designation, which effectively criminalizes the existence of any labeled organization, is set to go into effect on November 5. If it does, the impact on CAIR and CAIR-Florida would be immediate and devastating. In their October 2 motion for emergency relief, the nonprofits are asking that the court order Florida officials to rescind their designation of CAIR and CAIR-Florida and prevent it from going into effect. In the alternative, they are asking the court to prevent Florida state prosecutors from enforcing the law鈥檚 harsh penalties against the nonprofits and third parties connected with them. The impact on the Floridian communities CAIR and CAIR-Florida serve would also be immense. CAIR-Florida provides a range of pro bono legal services to Florida residents, including those who su铿�er government and workplace discrimination in violation of their civil rights, as well as those navigating the immigration system. They help register people to vote, dispel and counter false stereotypes, prejudices, and disinformation, of Muslims, and advocate for human rights. For example, CAIR and CAIR-Florida supported the campaign to bring back Mohammed Ibrahim鈥攁 16-year-old U.S. citizen from Florida鈥攚ho was unjustly detained by Israel in February 2025 for almost ten months. 鈥淣o state government should hold the power to unilaterally extinguish domestic advocacy organizations because of their First Amendment-protected activity," said Daniel Tilley, legal director, ACLU of Florida. 鈥淥ur democracy depends on freedom of speech and association and is fueled by those who advocate for their communities. For decades, CAIR and CAIR-Florida have sought to support a vibrant constitutional democracy where people of all religious traditions can thrive. This baseless designation will substantially harm the thousands of American Muslims who rely on CAIR鈥檚 advocacy 鈥� and we refuse to let it stand.鈥� CAIR and CAIR-Florida have done nothing to deserve this devastating designation. As the complaint explains, the state has never indicted, much less convicted, either CAIR or CAIR-Florida under any criminal law鈥攁nd certainly not a criminal law involving the serious charge of terrorism. If the state tried, it would fail. The reason is simple: neither CAIR nor CAIR-Florida is engaged in terrorist activity, and the state would be unable to prove its case in a court of law. CAIR and CAIR-Florida are represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP.

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.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of the District of Columbia (ACLU of D.C.) today filed an amicus brief in support of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico in their lawsuit against the Trump administration over the revocation of their reporters' White House press credentials. The brief filed by the ACLU and ACLU-D.C. warns that retaliation against the press is a tactic that 鈥渂elongs to a society much different and more oppressive than our own.鈥� The brief supports the media companies' claim that the White House violated the First Amendment when it restricted their access to official events because Donald Trump has been unhappy with their coverage. The brief argues that incursions on free expression, left unchecked, frequently lead to greater repression, as demonstrated by American history and the modern experience of other nations. The brief also catalogues the Trump administration鈥檚 alarming campaign of retaliation against dissenting voices. 鈥淚t鈥檚 unconstitutional for the president to ban certain media outlets from the White House because he doesn't like how they report about him," said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel for the ACLU of D.C. 鈥淭he White House is the people鈥檚 house, not the president鈥檚 private golf club.鈥� On September 18, Trump announced that the outlets鈥� reporters would be banned from the White House, and they were denied entry the next day. On September 21, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filed a First Amendment challenge to the ban. Two days later, a federal court in the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against the administration. That order lasts 14 days, so the plaintiffs are now filing for a preliminary injunction in their favor. 鈥淭he White House press pool guarantees the public鈥檚 timely access to important information about the president and the executive branch,鈥� said Brian Hauss, deputy director of the ACLU鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淚f the president can banish media outlets just because he doesn鈥檛 like their coverage, the American public will hear exclusively from sycophants and stenographers.鈥� This isn't the first time that Trump has barred a media outlet from the White House over his discontent with its coverage. In 2025, the administration banned the Associated Press over its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America." The AP challenged the administration in a case that is ongoing. The ACLU also filed an amicus brief supporting the AP in that lawsuit. CNN et al. v. Trump was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's brief is available here.