By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - CJR - PFT
UN GATE / SDNY COURT, Jan 4– A group of law professors, represented by a Washington lobbyist firm, sued last Fall on the theory that their First Amendment rights to support the UN-affiliated International Criminal Court have been impaired.
On October 9, the plaintiffs wrote of their motion for a preliminary injunction: "Re: Open Society Justice Initiative, et al. v. Trump, et al. Case No. 1:20-cv-8121-KPF – Request for Oral Argument Dear Judge Polk Failla: We represent Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action. We write in compliance with Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice 4(E) to request that the Court schedule oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to protect their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and to prevent the government from acting ultra vires under the governing statute. Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that oral argument would assist the Court in making its decision by elucidating the key points of difference between the parties on these issues."
Now on January 4, Judge Failla has partially granted the preliminary injunction, citing the First Amendment, podcast here, full order on Patreon here: "given Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on some of their First Amendment claims, courts “presume[]” irreparable harm when a plaintiff “alleges injury from a rule or regulation that directly limits speech.” Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ., 331 F.3d 342, 349-50 (2d Cir. 2003). See also N.Y. Progress & Prot. PAC, 733 F.3d at 486 (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion))); Evergreen Ass’n v. City of New York, 740 F.3d 233, 246 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding irreparable harm based on the fact that the challenged law “compels Plaintiffs to make disclosures or face penalties”). Furthermore, Plaintiffs have “establish[ed] an actual chilling effect.” Bronx Household, 331 Case 1:20-cv-08121-KPF Document 56 Filed 01/04/21 Page 31 of 34 32 F.3d at 349. The prospect of enforcement under IEPPA has caused Plaintiffs not to speak, and hence to forgo exercising their First Amendment rights. (See Goldston Decl. ¶ 8; Amann Decl. ¶ 8; Sterio Decl. ¶ 8; deGuzman Decl. ¶ 9; Rona Decl. ¶ 7). Thus, enjoining Defendants from enforcing IEEPA’s civil and criminal penalties against Plaintiffs would eliminate this chill and prevent irreparable harm. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting the preliminary injunction...The Court is mindful of the Government’s interest in defending its foreign policy prerogatives and maximizing the efficacy of its policy tools. Nevertheless, “national-security concerns must not become a talisman used to ward off inconvenient claims — a ‘label’ used to ‘cover a multitude of sins.’” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1862 (2017) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 523 (1985)). For largely the same reasons discussed above in the analysis of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims, the Court concludes that the proffered national security justification for seeking to prevent and potentially punish Plaintiffs’ speech is inadequate to overcome Plaintiffs’ and the public’s interest in the protection of First Amendment rights. See N.Y. Progress & Prot. PAC, 733 F.3d at 488 (“[S]ecuring First Amendment rights is in the public interest.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that the balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs’ favor. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED in part. Defendants are hereby enjoined from enforcing IEEPA’s civil or criminal penalty provisions against Plaintiffs for conduct specifically addressed in Plaintiff’s Complaint and in this Opinion and Order, to the extent that such conduct is alleged to have been committed in violation of Executive Order 13,928."
But the parties should be aware: the UN is no friend of free speech.
Under current Secretary General Antonio Guterres, the UN roughed up and has banned Inner City Press 823 days now, for its questions about Guterres' failures on Cameroon (a France-supported mass killing event not taken up by the ICC) and his undisclosed links to convicted UN bribers at CEFC China Energy. Video here, background here.
Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric - a US as well as French citizen - helped organize the rough up then initially promised on camera to at least answer Inner City Press' request questions, here. He has since stopped, and said "Mr. Lee's status remains unchanged."
With that unacted on, and Guterres' head of media accreditation Melissa Fleming - a US citizen - denying Inner City Press' application for re-accreditation last months without even giving a reason, the ICC / Trump complaint says:
“The executive order and the regulations impermissibly restrict plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech by prohibiting them from providing the speech-based services and assistance described above, including with respect to ICC investigations and prosecutions that the United States supports. The executive order and the regulations also lack the clarity required by the Fifth Amendment as to which acts subject a person to enforcement or designation, or which persons they cover.” Yeah.
The plaintiffs' lawyers are Shrutih Ramlochan-Tewarie and Nicholas Marcus Renzler of Foley Hoag LLP. The plaintiffs are The Open Society Justice Initiative, Diane Marie Amann, Milena Sterio, Margaret deGuzman and Gabor Rona. Are these professors, and Foley Hoag, really for free speech with regards to the UN and ICC? So far, it seems not.
Their case is Open Society Justice Initiative et al v. Trump et al, 1:20-cv-08121 (Failla)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
