A federal judge in Maine has blocked the U.S. government from enforcing sanctions against two American human rights advocates working with the International Criminal Court (ICC), ruling that a Trump-era executive order likely violates their First Amendment rights.
The decision stems from a lawsuit filed in April by Matthew Smith, a human rights nonprofit leader, and Akila Radhakrishnan, a lawyer. Their 39-page complaint challenged Executive Order 14203, which imposes sanctions on the ICC and restricts U.S. citizens from providing services to designated ICC officials, including those engaged in investigating war crimes.
The plaintiffs argued that the sanctions “violate their First Amendment rights, and those of others like them, by prohibiting their constitutionally protected speech.” In a 16-page order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen granted a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s enforcement of the sanctions.
“The Executive Order appears to burden substantially more speech than necessary,” she wrote, concluding that Smith and Radhakrishnan had demonstrated likely success on constitutional grounds. The executive order, signed by President Donald Trump, cited the ICC’s investigations into U.S. personnel and allies such as Israel as justification.
However, the judge noted that neither plaintiff’s work was related to the U.S. or Israel. Smith focuses on atrocities against the Rohingya people in Myanmar and Bangladesh, while Radhakrishnan works on gender-based violence in Afghanistan.
“The Government does not explain how its stated interest would be undermined—or even impacted—by the Plaintiffs’ services to the OTP [Office of the Prosecutor] related to the ICC’s ongoing work in Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Afghanistan,” the ruling states.
The court found the government’s argument contradictory—claiming the executive order is necessary for national security, while also implying it wouldn’t be enforced against the plaintiffs. “It is hard to square that position with the Government’s assertion that an injunction would impede national security and foreign policy interests,” Judge Torresen wrote.
The ruling stops short of addressing the plaintiffs’ additional claim that the order exceeds authority granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but firmly concludes that the restriction of speech-based services violates the First Amendment.
In granting the injunction, Judge Torresen emphasized that free speech violations constitute “irreparable injury,” reinforcing the constitutional significance of the case.