糖心Vlog

Today, Human Rights First, the 糖心Vlog (ACLU), and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in support of Democracy for the Arab World Now鈥檚 (DAWN) efforts to block an individual sanctioned for violence in the Israeli occupied West Bank from accessing information about DAWN鈥檚 advocacy for sanctions against him. The brief argues that various protections, including the First Amendment and reporter鈥檚 privilege, bar the court from granting the discovery requested in this case. The brief also emphasizes how such discovery requests, if granted, would put civil society groups at serious risk of irreparable harm and chill their vital advocacy work on human rights and corruption issues. In August 2024, Isaac Levi Pilant was sanctioned by the U.S. government under the West Bank sanctions program, for attacking and forcefully expelling Palestinians from a West Bank settlement. At the time, human rights groups, media outlets, and witnesses had documented Pilant鈥檚 alleged role in violent attacks against Palestinians, and DAWN had publicly recommended that the U.S. government impose sanctions on him and others for such violence. The sanctions against Pilant were lifted in January 2025, after President Trump effectively terminated the West Bank sanctions program. Pilant then filed an application against DAWN and its executive director, Sarah Leah Whitson, pursuant to a U.S. law that provides a mechanism for foreign litigants to obtain discovery from people and entities in the United States.The application seeks a court order for information related to DAWN鈥檚 investigation of Pilant and its sanctions advocacy efforts. Pilant says he seeks the information for use in a possible future defamation case in Israel against an Israeli human rights organization. The brief explains how the U.S. government has established frameworks and processes to encourage nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to share sensitive information that can assist it in more effectively implementing various human rights and corruption sanctions and visa restriction programs. Undermining the protections for NGOs to securely and confidentially share this information would not only impact the ability of the U.S. government to use such tools to hold human rights abusers and corrupt actors accountable, but it would also put NGOs, victims of abuse, and others in civil society in jeopardy by opening them up to retaliation and harassment from people they accuse of human rights violations. 鈥淗uman rights and corruption sanctions are impactful tools of accountability because they threaten the reputations and financial interests of abusers. Forcing NGOs to share information about their sanctions advocacy would put them at grave risk of violence and retaliation from repressive governments and powerful private individuals,鈥� said Amanda Strayer, Senior Counsel for Accountability at Human Rights First. 鈥淯.S. courts should not become a forum for sanctioned actors to harass and seek retribution against civil society groups that advocate for measures to hold them accountable.鈥� The brief also argues that Pilant鈥檚 broad discovery request implicates information protected under the First Amendment and the reporter鈥檚 privilege, which provide grounds to reject his request under the Section 1782 statute. Supreme Court precedent requires the Court to give weight to the serious First Amendment and policy considerations before granting such a request. In this case, these considerations should result in the Court denying Pilant鈥檚 discovery request. 鈥淚t is the nature of human rights reporting that it often draws the ire of accused human rights violators. But the law is clear that such individuals cannot coopt U.S. courts in an attempt to harass and endanger human rights organizations and the victims of abuses whose stories they safeguard. That鈥檚 why this is an easy case, and we hope the court has no trouble concluding that the First Amendment protects DAWN鈥檚 rights to free speech and association, and bars enforcement of the meritless request for intrusive discovery,鈥� said Nathan Freed Wessler, Deputy Director of the 糖心VlogSpeech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淣GOs can play a critical role in providing accountability for human rights abuses, and the Constitution protects them from being forced to reveal certain confidential aspects of that work,鈥� said Bobby Hodgson, assistant legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. 鈥淒AWN is being targeted by a foreign litigant implicated in serious human rights violations in an effort to weaponize our court system to silence critics. We urge the court to reject these requests and recognize that the discovery process does not create an end run around the First Amendment.鈥�

President Donald Trump's use of the military domestically is dangerous and deeply misguided.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Two U.S. human rights advocates are challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 executive order imposing sanctions on the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from speaking with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. 鈥淭he International Criminal Court is where victims of grave human rights violations turn when national legal systems fail to provide justice,鈥� said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with ACLU鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淏locking our clients and others like them from doing their human rights work is unconstitutional.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鈥攍ike the genocide of Myanmar鈥檚 Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban鈥攃ould face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. 鈥淏ecause of this order, I鈥檝e been forced to stop helping the ICC investigate horrific crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including mass murder, torture, and human trafficking,鈥� said Matthew Smith, co-founder and CEO of Fortify Rights. 鈥淭his Executive Order doesn鈥檛 just disrupt our work鈥攊t actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors.鈥� Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the executive order 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. As the lawsuit explains, the First Amendment does not allow the government to impose such sweeping limits on what Americans can say, and to whom they can say it. 鈥淰ictims of the Taliban鈥檚 oppression can鈥檛 rely on their own courts for justice. That鈥檚 why they turn to the ICC, and why it's so important for me to be able to partner with them in their fight for justice and accountability,鈥� said Akila Radhakrishnan, an international human rights lawyer. 鈥淚鈥檓 bringing this suit to prevent my own government from punishing me for trying to hold the Taliban accountable for its systematic violence against women and girls from Afghanistan.鈥� 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鈥攊ncluding genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes鈥攚hen domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC鈥檚 founding treaty, known as the 鈥淩ome Statute.鈥� 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 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the 糖心Vlogsued 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.

On April 11, 2025, the 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Maine filed a lawsuit on behalf of two human rights advocates who, because of an executive order signed by President Trump, have been forced to stop humanitarian work with the International Criminal Court.