How many of those papers were accepted before the invasion? Who do you propose does the vetting of backgrounds for all the publishers in the world?

@JonCuster I'm not proposing anything. I'm just asking if editors are expected to be completely neutral about the identity of the person or if they're expected to run a basic background check. As an extreme example, imagine someone trying to publish a paper while serving time for murder.

Do the sanctions include publishing? The article you point to doesn't say.

@ScottSeidman no - and I suspect it would be a very blatant First Amendment violation, as this would effectively restrict the speech of American publishers.

@JonathanReez Background checks aren't free. Journals famously are cheap. I don't think a journal has everyone run a background check on any author.

There are several past questions here about how publishers should react to papers from Iran, because of the past US sanctions on Iran: Does Iran's sanction play a pivotal role in rejecting papers from a journal?

"As an extreme example, imagine someone trying to publish a paper while serving time for murder." << Not only have some convicted murderers published papers, they have also published whole books. If someone is sentenced to serve time in prison, then they are sentenced to serve time in prison, they are not sentenced to not write.

@Greg Either way we can agree journals aren’t doing it

I am going to remove the PS -- most of the existing answers do focus on the example you gave, so that ship has sailed. But I will add the "controversial" tag -- any political debate / discussion will be removed without warning.

This raises another important question (in the case people deem the "reputation" of the person has to be taken into account): who has the authority to decide whether someone is of "notorious reputation", and do we trust that authority, as it might has its own political biases?

@JonathanReez as always ... journal publishers are not the government. 1st Amendment only relates to what a government actively prevents you doing. Non-govt. organisations are not obliged to platform anyone for any reason.

@Brondahl we are talking about whether or not the US government could ban a publisher from publishing a sanctioned persons papers.

@JonathanReez "considered good practice" "are they supposed to be". No you're not; you're talking about culturally/comunity agreed norms and expectations ... not governmentally imposed rules. If you were talking about the US government banning something this would be on the Legal SE

''Andre Bloch killed three of his family members, for which he was institutionalized in a mental asylum for 31 years, during which all of his mathematical output was produced'' (!).

@Brondahl First amendment concerns are relevant because this question is an example of how government regulations can have a chilling effect on non-government agents. The OP specifically mentioned government sanctions as a possible reason for why journals would reject publication. That's a perfect example of a chilling effect.

@barbecue No, it isn't. "Chilling Effect" refers to a very specific concept, in which actors self-censor in response to the threat of possible legal action. That does not in any way apply here, because there is no threat or implication whatsoever that a govt. political sanction could lead to legal actions against publishers. And OP's question doesn't suggest or ask whether there could be. It asks solely about community norms.