Court Strikes Down Internet Censorship Law

PORTLAND, Maine — In a win for the First Amendment, government officials declared that Amanda McGonigle, creator of the social media accounts @CatsOnACouch, will be permitted to attend official vice-presidential events for which she registers, subject to the same rules applicable to all attendees. A senior official in the Office of the Vice President also committed in court documents to respect all registrants’ First Amendment rights, stating “[a]ttendees will not be prevented from attending official events based on protected expression or speech." Ms. McGonigle therefore asked the court today to dismiss her lawsuit challenging her exclusion from an official government event based on her social media content criticizing the vice president. “No matter how many times I call Vice President Vance a soggy saltine on social media, I have the right to attend official vice-presidential events that I've registered for, just like any other member of the public,” said Amanda McGonigle. “Dissent is patriotic, and so is showing up to official vice-presidential events wearing a t-shirt stating, ‘jd vance cured my imposter syndrome.’ Our voice is our power, and I hope people will continue to use it knowing that when it comes to events like these and holding the administration accountable, the First Amendment is on our side.” In May of this year, McGonigle registered to attend an official vice-presidential event in Bangor, Maine, but was prevented from entering the event. While in line for that event, armed Secret Service agents and other government officials called her out by name and told her she wasn’t allowed in, stating “we know where you stand.” She was previously denied confirmation details to attend another official event in Des Moines, Iowa. McGonigle filed suit earlier this summer to challenge the government’s retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination against her. McGonigle claimed that she was excluded from the events in Bangor and Des Moines because of commentary she posts on her social media accounts, which are dedicated to criticizing the Vice President. She launched her @CatsOnACouch accounts after Vice President Vance’s infamous “childless cat lady” comment in 2024, and she says the purpose of the account is “to have more followers than JD Vance by the time he leaves office and to troll him mercilessly every single day.” “The First Amendment has always required that Amanda be treated like anyone else at public, vice-presidential events, no matter how much the government dislikes her speech,” said Anahita Sotoohi, staff attorney at the ACLU of Maine. “The government has now affirmatively recognized that constitutional requirement, by stating in a court filing that it will not bar Amanda, or any other member of the public, from public events just because it doesn’t like what they have to say. We are glad that Amanda can now attend official vice-presidential events like any other member of the public. Her challenge has put the government on record committing to respect all people’s First Amendment rights at official events.” In August, government officials allowed Ms. McGonigle to attend an official speaking engagement hosted by Vice President Vance in Brewer, Maine, after the ACLU and ACLU of Maine requested a preliminary injunction to allow her to attend future official vice-presidential events. The government agreed she could attend the event in Brewer, just like any other member of the public who registered. Ms. McGonigle entered the event without interference, wearing a t-shirt stating, “jd vance cured my imposter syndrome.” “The First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to bar people from attending official vice-presidential events on the basis of their protected speech,” said Laura Moraff, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re glad the federal government recognized that Amanda has the right to attend public vice-presidential events that she registers for just like everyone else.”

WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union today released a new report, 76 Ways Mass Deportation is Breaking Our Democracy, detailing how the Trump administration is using mass deportation as the pretext and mechanism to attack civil liberties and structural democratic safeguards at an unparalleled scale and speed. The report comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests have hit a record high, as the Trump administration has shifted its approach from mass raids to more discrete arrests following widespread outrage. From the deployment of federal agents and military troops for immigration enforcement in U.S. cities, to the mass revocation of visas and other forms of lawful status, and the targeting of immigrants’ rights protesters, the Trump administration has repeatedly used immigration policy as a trojan horse for attacks on core pillars of U.S. democracy. Notably, the report categorizes the dizzying array of abuses into three major categories, which often overlap: Attacks on civil rights and liberties, as the Trump administration has used mass deportations as both a pretext and distraction for its assault on myriad constitutional rights – including the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly and due process – impacting citizens and noncitizens alike. Attacks on democratic checks and balances, as the administration expands its federal deportation police and executive power, eviscerating due process for immigrants and normalizing ICE’s violence, while evading and even defying court orders. Attacks on multiracial, pluralistic democracy, as the administration continues to gut existing legal protections and introduce new policies targeting people who are immigrants – including through visa and entry bans and efforts to end birthright citizenship and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) – in what appears to be a calculated attempt to change the racial makeup of the U.S. now and into the future. “For the past year and a half, the ACLU and advocates have warned that the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda pulls straight from an authoritarian playbook – and now, we’re seeing the devasting impacts of those policies, with citizens and noncitizens alike paying the price and the state of our democracy in crisis,” said Naureen Shah, director of immigration policy and government affairs at the ACLU. “This report is a clarion call to members of Congress to strengthen and repair our pluralistic, multiracial democracy by passing meaningful immigration reforms. That must include creating a broad path to citizenship for immigrants who contribute to our communities and our economy.” Within the report, the ACLU also calls on members of Congress to restore and defend democratic rights and norms through transformative immigration reform, including by creating a broad path to citizenship and modernization of border processing and policies. It also calls on lawmakers to build stronger accountability, transparency and oversight measures to effectively compel the executive branch to uphold civil rights and civil liberties. “From the cancellation of Congressionally mandated protections like TPS to the arrest of noncitizen students for exercising their First Amendment rights, the Trump administration has repeatedly violated bedrock democratic principles under the guise of immigration enforcement,” said Sarah Mehta, deputy director of immigration policy and government affairs at the ACLU. “As this administration has shown, no one is safe from its extreme mass deportation agenda. Our elected officials – and the state of our democracy – cannot afford to allow this lawlessness to continue. The time to act is now.” This report is the fourth in the ACLU’s affirmative immigration vision series, in which policy and legal experts explore how the Trump administration’s immigration agenda has harmed communities nationwide, undermined our democracy, and wreaked havoc on key industries and weakened the American workforce. The series will also outline steps that members of Congress, as well as state and local policymakers, can take to reform the U.S. immigration system and inoculate against future attacks on core rights and safety. You can read the full report here: https://www.aclu.org/publications/76-ways-mass-deportation-is-breaking-our-democracy

TALLAHASSEE — 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 “domestic terrorist organizations” 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’s vote. “For 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,” said CAIR. “Gov. 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.” Under HB 1471, five Florida executive officials have the power to designate and debilitate U.S. groups—including nonprofits engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy—without 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, “The new regime transforms Florida’s Governor, Chief of Domestic Security, and Cabinet into judge, jury, and nonprofit executioner.” 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’s lawful, constitutionally protected speech and association are immediately rendered illegal and impossible—simply because a handful of state officials say so. “We’re asking for urgent judicial intervention to prevent CAIR and CAIR-Florida from becoming the first casualties of Florida’s unconstitutional and draconian new law,” said Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Constitution does not allow officials to punish U.S. organizations and deny them due process because of disagreement with their views, yet Florida’s Governor and Cabinet did so anyway. It’s 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.” 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’ 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’s law is also preempted by federal law. “Without 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.” said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director, Southern Poverty Law Center. “This 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.” 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’s 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 suffer 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—a 16-year-old U.S. citizen from Florida—who was unjustly detained by Israel in February 2025 for almost ten months. “No 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. “Our 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’s advocacy — and we refuse to let it stand.” 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—and 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 — 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’s effort to dismiss two U.S. human rights advocates’ challenge to President Trump’s 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’s order allows the human rights experts’ claims to proceed. “In my work, I help the ICC investigate hideous crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including mass murder, torture, and human trafficking,” said Matthew Smith, founder and CEO of Fortify Rights. “This Executive Order undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors.” Under Executive Order 14203, 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. 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. “Victims of the Taliban’s oppression can’t rely on their own courts for justice. That’s 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,” said Akila Radhakrishnan, an international human rights lawyer. “I’m 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.” Monday’s 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 “there is a strong likelihood the EO violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.” The court also wrote that, under the human rights experts’ “reasonable interpretation,” the executive order was “incompatible” with the federal statute the administration invoked as authority for the sanctions. The court also rejected the administration’s arguments that the human rights experts lacked standing and that their claims were not ready for review. “The government’s attempt to dismiss our clients’ claims was both predictable and meritless,” said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with ACLU’s National Security Project. “The First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to. We’re pleased our clients can continue their important work, and we look forward to continuing to vindicate their rights in court.” 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. “Our clients’ human rights work is protected by the First Amendment, and the court’s ruling affirms that the executive order is an unlawful ban on that important work,” said Anahita Sotoohi, staff attorney at the ACLU of Maine. “We are pleased that our clients can continue their activism while the case is pending.” This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the ACLU and ACLU of Maine.