U.S. Court Agrees Trump Administration’s ICC Sanctions Likely Violate First Amendment Rights Of Fortify Rights CEO

(Bangkok, July 23, 2025)—A U.S. federal court last week granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by Fortify Rights CEO Matthew Smith and human rights advocate Akila Radhakrishnan challenging the Trump administration’s executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and banning advocates from communicating with the ICC under threat of criminal prosecution. The court issued the order on July 17 and concluded 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 of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of speech.

The preliminary injunction prohibits the administration from punishing the two advocates for their work related to the ICC while the litigation is pending.

“I’m grateful the court recognized the serious threat this executive order against the ICC poses to fundamental freedoms and to our ability to pursue accountability for mass atrocity crimes,” said Matthew Smith. “This case is not only about our rights — it’s about safeguarding the space for all human rights defenders to advocate for justice, speak truth to power, and demand international accountability without fear of reprisal.”

Both Smith and Radhakrishnan are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—a leading American organization that defends and promotes individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. As the lawsuit explains, the sanctions violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting Smith, Radhakrishnan, and other Americans like them from speaking with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence.

“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 have 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.

“Fighting this order isn’t only a defense of the work I do, or the court itself,” wrote Matthew Smith in an op-ed published June 6 in the New York Times. “It’s also a statement about what kind of country we want to be.”

On Friday last week, the New York Times referred to the court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction “a striking, if tentative, blow to the president’s efforts to penalize and isolate the world’s highest criminal court.”

For more information about the lawsuit, please see the ACLU’s webpage devoted to Smith v. Trump.

© Scoop Media