Why Texas Is Wrong and South Carolina Is Right on the Confederate Flag

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.

TALLAHASSEE — At Tuesday’s Florida Cabinet meeting, Gov. Ron DeSantis and other state officials followed through on their campaign to designate two leading Muslim civil rights nonprofits as “domestic terrorist organizations.” 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’s 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. “As I wanted to explain before the Cabinet voted to designate our clients, Gov. DeSantis’s use of Florida’s dangerous new “terrorism” designation regime against CAIR and its Florida chapter is baseless and unconstitutional,” said Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “There 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’ rights in court.” If the courts do not intervene, the designation will become effective on November 5.

WASHINGTON — 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 “belongs to a society much different and more oppressive than our own.” 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’s alarming campaign of retaliation against dissenting voices. “It’s 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. “The White House is the people’s house, not the president’s private golf club.” On September 18, Trump announced that the outlets’ 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. “The White House press pool guarantees the public’s timely access to important information about the president and the executive branch,” said Brian Hauss, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “If the president can banish media outlets just because he doesn’t like their coverage, the American public will hear exclusively from sycophants and stenographers.” 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.

NIH is targeting and terminating grants for research studies that it thinks will communicate disfavored viewpoints on diversity, gender identity, climate change, and more, violating First Amendment rights and threatening the future of public health.