ACLU Comment on Trump’s New Muslim Ban

President Donald Trump's use of the military domestically is dangerous and deeply misguided.

WASHINGTON — Two U.S. human rights advocates are challenging the Trump administration’s executive order imposing sanctions on the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from speaking with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. “The International Criminal Court is where victims of grave human rights violations turn when national legal systems fail to provide justice,” said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with ACLU’s National Security Project. “Blocking our clients and others like them from doing their human rights work is unconstitutional.” 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. “Because of this order, I’ve been forced to stop helping the ICC investigate horrific crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including mass murder, torture, and human trafficking,” said Matthew Smith, co-founder and CEO of Fortify Rights. “This Executive Order doesn’t just disrupt our work—it actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors.” Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the executive order 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. As the lawsuit explains, the First Amendment does not allow the government to impose such sweeping limits on what Americans can say, and to whom they can say it. “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.” 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 ACLU 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.

On April 11, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maine filed a lawsuit on behalf of two human rights advocates who, because of an executive order signed by President Trump, have been forced to stop humanitarian work with the International Criminal Court.

NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University today filed an amicus brief in support of foreign policy expert Dr. Sue Mi Terry in a criminal case pending in federal court. Dr. Terry has been charged with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for failing to register as an agent of the Republic of Korea. The groups argue that reading FARA broadly could chill a wide range of speech on issues of public concern and enable the government to selectively target speakers for viewpoint-based reasons in violation of the First Amendment. They call on the court to narrowly interpret the law to avoid these potential constitutional problems. “While the government has a legitimate interest in informing Americans about foreign attempts to influence domestic public discourse, interpreting FARA broadly does nothing to further that interest and raises serious First Amendment concerns,” said Xiangnong (George) Wang, staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “The court should interpret the law narrowly to avoid chilling protected speech.” Today’s brief argues that FARA’s sweeping terms could be read to apply to speakers that have only a minimal connection with foreign individuals or entities. It explains that interpreting FARA this broadly would impose serious burdens on speech protected by the First Amendment, especially because the law is backed by criminal sanctions. The brief notes that the law makes no distinction between an “agent” who acts as a mouthpiece of a foreign adversary and a journalist who works with a media organization like the British newspaper The Guardian. As a result, FARA’s burdens would fall especially heavily on media organizations, journalists, and nonprofits. “Over the last decade, the government has increasingly invoked FARA to stigmatize, stifle, and suppress viewpoints it doesn’t like,” said Aamra Ahmad, senior counsel with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The court should take this opportunity to ensure FARA is read narrowly to protect news outlets, nonprofits, and individuals’ free speech rights.” Read today’s amicus brief here. Read more about the case here.