US district court judgments on First Amendment freedom of speech rights and US sanctions on the ICC

31 October 2025

There have been 3 US district court judgments on the impact of US International Criminal Court sanctions on freedom of speech rights granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

• Open society Justice Initiative et Al v Trump

• Smith et Al v Trump

• Rona et Al v Trump

In all 3 cases, the plaintiffs were researchers or academics who had provided research, consultancy and education services to the ICC prior to the imposition of US sanctions. None of the researchers were sanctioned and OFAC had not initiated enforcement proceedings against any of them when the trials took place. The researchers had stopped providing “speech-based services” to the ICC following the imposition of US sanctions on the ICC due to the risk of potential civil and criminal penalties for violating US sanctions. They argued this meant the US ICC sanctions violated their First Amendment freedom of speech rights.

The US first imposed sanctions on the ICC in June 2020 – EO 13928. Section 3(a) banned the provision of any services to a person sanctioned under the regime. The Biden Administration revoked EO 13928 in April 2021. In 2025, the second Trump Administration reimposed sanctions on the ICC, including the section 3(a) services ban – EO 14203. See our ICC sanctions page for information, guidance, and relevant legislation.

In Open Society Justice Initiative et Al v Trump (4 February 2021), a group of non-sanctioned researchers asked the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to annul the services ban at section 3(a) of EO 13928 because it violated their First Amendment rights. They applied for a preliminary injunction to prevent OFAC from enforcing civil and criminal penalties against them for providing speech-based services to the ICC. The Court granted the preliminary injunction, holding that the services ban was a “content-based restriction” on their freedom of speech which was not justified by the Government’s evidence that the ICC was a threat to US national security interests. EO 13928 was revoked before a full trial on the merits, so the trial was discontinued as the sanctions were no longer effective.

In Smith et Al v Trump (18 July 2025), after US sanctions on the ICC were reintroduced, 2 researchers asked the US District Court for the District of Maine to annul the services ban at section 3(a) of EO 14203, which is identical to the ban imposed by section 3(a) of EO 13928. They claimed the ICC sanctions violated their First Amendment freedom of speech rights and asked the court to annul the services ban insofar as it applied to speech-based services. The court, citing Open Society Justice Initiative et Al v Trump, said the US ICC sanctions violated their First Amendment freedom of speech rights and issued a preliminary injunction preventing OFAC from imposing civil and criminal penalties on either of them for providing speech-based services to the ICC. A full trial on the merits will take place later.

In Rona et Al v Trump (30 July 2025), 2 researchers asked the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to grant them a permanent injunction preventing any potential OFAC enforcement actions against them for violating the services ban in section 3(a) of EO 14203, again on the basis that the services ban violated their First Amendment freedom of speech rights. The Court granted their permanent injunction, saying:

• EO 14203 “regulated protected speech based on content”, which meant it was “presumptively unconstitutional”.

• The Government’s did not provide sufficient evidence for its claim that national security concerns justified this “unconstitutional” restriction.

• The possibility that Mr Rona and Ms Davis could be granted on OFAC licence did not mean that the sanctions would not cause “irreparable harm” to them. The OFAC licensing scheme exacerbated the “irreparable harm” by introducing a “prior restraint” on their freedom of speech.

The court cited Open Society Justice Initiative et Al v Trump extensively in Rona et Al v Trump.