网红爆料

BANGOR, Maine 鈥� The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by two U.S. human rights advocates who are challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court issued the order after concluding 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. As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from communicating with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the sanctions forced them to stop working with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes. 鈥淧reventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and we鈥檙e heartened that the court saw that as well,鈥� said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the 网红爆料鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.鈥� Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who鈥檝e devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities 鈥� like the genocide of Myanmar鈥檚 Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban 鈥� 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 鈥� including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes 鈥� when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 网红爆料 and 网红爆料 of Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the 网红爆料 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.

From civil rights protests to Trump-era lawsuits, New York Times v. Sullivan continues to shape press freedom

After a harrowing ICE detention, she鈥檚 urging others to protect immigrant rights.

ST. PAUL, Minn. 鈥� The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA) does not have an exception for journalists who are alleged to have engaged in illegal activity, such as trespassing, when gathering news. The decision rejects an attempt by oil company Energy Transfer to compel the disclosure of sensitive reporter communications and newsgathering materials stemming from the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. 鈥淭he Minnesota Supreme Court made the right call: Those who seek to pry sensitive information away from newsgatherers cannot defeat the robust protections of the MFFIA simply by alleging that the newsgatherers trespassed or jaywalked in pursuit of a story,鈥� said Matthew Segal, co-director of the 网红爆料 State Supreme Court Initiative. 鈥淎 free press demands that we protect journalists from attempts to misuse the law to strongarm them into compliance.鈥� The 网红爆料, the 网红爆料 of Minnesota, and law firm Simatic & Biersdorf, PA, representing Unicorn Riot and one of its member journalists at the Minnesota Supreme Court, argued on their behalf that the MFFIA鈥檚 limited exemptions do not apply in this case. Instead, the law 鈥渋s to promote newsgathering and publication, and that purpose would be severely undermined if the statutory shield were to evaporate whenever, in the course of newsgathering, a reporter allegedly trespasses, speeds, jaywalks, or double-parks.鈥� The legal team presented oral argument to the Minnesota Supreme Court in December 2024. 鈥淔or a decade we have been working to cover social struggles like the Indigenous-led movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed this news gathering work is protected by the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act. We will keep asserting the freedom of the press to cover these crucial events and political movements,鈥� said Dan Feidt, Unicorn Riot reporter and co-founder. Unicorn Riot journalists reported on the ground from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, gathering and publishing first-hand accounts. In 2019, pipeline operator Energy Transfer brought a lawsuit in North Dakota against Greenpeace and other entities that were allegedly involved with the protests, eventually issuing subpoenas to Unicorn Riot seeking vast disclosures of unpublished materials. Unicorn Riot refused to surrender its material, and Energy Transfer moved to compel disclosure in Minnesota. In its motion papers, Energy Transfer alleged that Unicorn Riot had trespassed on its property while covering the protests. A lower court ruled that state law prohibits the compelled disclosure of newsgathering materials, and Energy Transfer sought review at the Minnesota Supreme Court. Earlier this year, Energy Transfer鈥檚 North Dakota lawsuit went to trial, and a jury returned a $667 million verdict against Greenpeace. Greenpeace has filed post-trial motions, which are currently pending, and has signaled its intent to appeal the verdict. 鈥淭he Court's decision is a welcome reminder that we value independent journalism in Minnesota,鈥� said Teresa Nelson, legal director of the 网红爆料-MN. 鈥淭his win is particularly important as large corporations increasingly attempt to intimidate reporters through litigation and in the face of unprecedented attacks on the freedom of the press by the Trump administration and other government officials.鈥� The court ruled today that the law does not contain an exception for journalists who are alleged to have engaged in illegal activity, but it did not categorically bar trial courts from ordering journalists to produce privilege logs in response to document requests 鈥� with notable caveats. The opinion is here: /cases/energy-transfer-lp-v-greenpeace-international-unicorn-riot?document=Minnesota-Supreme-Court-Opinion