Insight From a Reader

BANGOR, Maine — The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by two U.S. human rights advocates who are challenging the Trump administration’s executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court issued the order after concluding that the advocates were likely to succeed on their claim that the speech restrictions imposed on them by the executive order violate the First Amendment. As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from communicating with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the sanctions forced them to stop working with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes. “Preventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and we’re heartened that the court saw that as well,” said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.” Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who’ve devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities — like the genocide of Myanmar’s Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban — could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. 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 — including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes — when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC’s 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’s critical work on a wide range of matters. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the ACLU sued on behalf of human rights experts who were forced to stop working with the ICC. Our clients withdrew their lawsuit when President Joe Biden rescinded the sanctions, but a federal court in a separate suit agreed the sanctions likely violated the First Amendment.

WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union tonight sent a letter to President Trump making clear that only Congress can authorize the use of military force against Iran. The letter comes amidst reports that President Trump is seriously considering Israel’s request for the U.S. to get directly involved in its current war with Iran, and as President Trump has ramped up threats on social media, including calling for all of Tehran — or over 10 million people — to immediately evacuate. While the ACLU does not take a position on whether military force should be used against Iran, for decades the organization has been steadfast in insisting, from Vietnam through the war in Afghanistan, both wars in Iraq, the military action against Libya, and the ongoing use of force in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, that decisions on whether to use military force require Congress's specific, advance authorization. As the letter explains, “Congress, as representatives of the American citizenry, has exclusive authority under the Constitution to decide whether the President may use military force. Particularly in the wake of recent threats of U.S. military action against Iran, we urge you to make clear that you will refrain from use of force outside the scope of the Constitution and the law.” Members of both the Senate and House of Representatives have also introduced resolutions under the War Powers Act reaffirming that the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war, and that hostilities with Iran must be expressly authorized through a formal declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force. “The Constitution couldn’t be clearer, Congress alone has the power to decide whether to use force against Iran, and our leaders need to take that grave responsibility seriously,” said Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU’s Democracy and Technology Division. “If President Trump wants to send American armed forces into conflict, he has to make his case to the American people — and to the people’s representatives in Congress. That’s what makes us a democracy.”

For decades, the Department of Justice has been responsible for advising the President on the use of the military within the United States. By filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the ACLU obtained over a dozen DOJ opinions on the domestic use of the military, none which had previously been released to the public.

WASHINGTON — Today, President Trump ordered hundreds of active-duty marines to support the administration’s crack down on immigrants’ rights protestors in Los Angeles, who took to the streets following last week’s cruel ICE-led raids and the unjust arrest of SEIU president David Huerta. Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement in response: “Every move President Trump has made since Saturday night has been escalatory and inflammatory. The idea that these Marines have anywhere near the kind of training required to police protests while respecting people’s constitutional rights would be laughable if the situation weren’t so alarming. “From the get-go, the Trump administration’s deployment of troops into the streets of California, over the governor’s objection, has raised serious constitutional concerns. This latest move only increases legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and further endangers the rights of the people of Los Angeles. Brave Angelenos who are peacefully standing up for the rights of their immigrant neighbors deserve better, just like this country does.”