US court refuses to dismiss First Amendment challenge to ICC sanctions

5 October 2026

A US court in Maine has refused the US government's application to dismiss a challenge by two human rights advocates to the US sanctions programme targeting the International Criminal Court (ICC) – Smith & Radhakrishnan v Trump.

Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are US-based advocates who worked with the ICC to support its prosecutions. They brought a legal challenge after the US imposed sanctions on the ICC in 2025 (EO 14203). They claimed the sanctions violated their right to freedom of speech and exceeded the President's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Section 3(a) of EO 14203 prevents US persons from providing funds, goods or services to, or for the benefit of, anyone sanctioned under it.

The court granted them a preliminary injunction in July 2025, preventing the US from imposing civil and criminal penalties on either of them for providing speech-based services to the ICC until a full hearing was held. The US government then applied to dismiss the claim.

The Court refused the government's application. It said:

• The plaintiffs' planned work with ICC prosecutors was protected by the First Amendment because it was speech on matters of public concern.

• The Court did not decide how EO 14203 should be interpreted, which will be decided later in the case. It was enough that the plaintiffs had plausibly argued that EO 14203 bans their work with ICC prosecutors.

• The plaintiffs could challenge EO 14203 without first breaching it. The government had not ruled out enforcing sanctions against the plaintiffs, and penalties include up to 20 years' imprisonment.

• The plaintiffs did not need to ask the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for guidance or a licence before challenging EO 14203.

The plaintiffs withdrew their standalone claim that EO 14203 exceeded the President's powers. Their First Amendment claim will continue, as will their claim that OFAC's regulations implementing EO 14203 breach the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes the argument that the regulations exceed IEEPA’s authority. A full hearing on the merits will take place later.

Our US-ICC pages tracks all challenges to the ICC sanctions regime.