Smith v. Trump (Smith ICC Sanctions)
Case Overview
Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan, U.S. citizens and human rights advocates, sued the Trump administration over President Trump's executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court
BrynoDC Coverage 2 videos
The Facts
Capitol Police Officer James Smith and other plaintiffs sued Donald Trump alleging that Trump's speech at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, which directed supporters to march to the Capitol, incited the crowd and caused the violent storming that resulted in physical injuries to officers. Trump moved to dismiss on grounds that his speech was protected by presidential immunity under Nixon v. Fitzgerald and the First Amendment. The D.C. Circuit allowed the case to proceed, concluding Trump's speech was not within his official presidential duties.
The Application
Plaintiffs challenge an executive order imposing ICC sanctions as exceeding presidential authority and unconstitutionally burdening their advocacy rights. The court must examine whether the sanctions fall within statutory delegation of authority, comply with treaty obligations and applicable statutes, and whether any incidental burden on plaintiffs' expression survives constitutional review.
The Conclusion
The case is active in D. Maine with ongoing proceedings on jurisdictional issues (standing, ripeness), preliminary relief motions, and substantive challenges to the executive order's constitutional and statutory validity.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support