Human Rights Groups Sue Trump Over ICC Sanctions

Four prominent human rights organizations filed a lawsuit Tuesday in the Southern District of New York challenging the Trump administration’s campaign against the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguing that sanctions targeting the tribunal and its affiliates violate U.S. constitutional protections and international law. Human Rights Watch, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Open Society Institute jointly brought the action, according to AP News.

The Lawsuit

The complaint challenges President Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order (EO 14203), which imposed sanctions on ICC officials, judges, and others supporting the court’s investigations—including into Israeli crimes in Palestine. The sanctions also targeted Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Palestinian territory, and three Palestinian human rights groups, including Al Haq.

The groups argue the sanctions force them to “curtail a wide range of human rights and legal work in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights under the US Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” as The Guardian reported. The lawsuit describes the administration’s actions as a “blatantly illegal attack on international justice” that should be struck down.

“The fact that so many leading human rights and humanitarian organizations have come together to challenge Trump’s unlawful executive order demonstrates the widespread harm it is causing across civil society groups dedicated to bringing those responsible for grave crimes to justice,” said Andrew Loewenstein of Foley Hoag LLP, the lead counsel representing the plaintiffs.

Escalating Pressure on the ICC

The lawsuit comes amid an escalating campaign by the administration against the Hague-based court. In July, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a “sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty,” as The Guardian reported. The plan involves pressuring member states to withdraw from the institution, sanctioning organizations that work with the court, and banning staff from traveling to the United States.

The administration’s sanctions were imposed in retaliation for ICC arrest warrants issued for top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over the war in Gaza, as well as investigations into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. The executive order itself states that the court created “a risk that the President and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Government may be prosecuted,” according to AP News.

A Pattern of Legal Challenges

Tuesday’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges to the sanctions regime. In July, DAWN and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide filed suit, with DAWN’s executive director Omar Shakir stating that the administration is “using the blunt instrument of economic sanctions not only to punish human rights defenders but to police the political expressions of millions of Americans,” as AP News reported.

Three sitting ICC judges—Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, and Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin—also sued the administration in June, arguing the sanctions constitute a “financial death penalty” that prevents them from using credit cards, accessing banking services, and booking travel, according to Reuters via The Straits Times. Francesca Albanese’s family filed a separate suit in February.

Federal courts have found the executive order unconstitutional at least five times since it was issued. In July 2025, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York granted a permanent injunction in a case brought by law professor Gabor Rona, finding that EO 14203 “regulated protected speech based on content,” rendering it “presumptively unconstitutional.” Furman noted the new order used “the exact language” a court had already found likely unconstitutional the first time, writing, “In law, as in life, two wrongs do not make a right.”

Chilling Effect on Human Rights Work

The sanctions have had a profound impact on civil society organizations. Groups like DAWN have halted work on submissions to the ICC about Israel’s conduct during the war, stopped exchanging evidence and legal analysis with sanctioned non-government organizations, and abstained from collaborating with them on advocacy campaigns. The sanctions have also devastated Al Haq, a Palestinian human rights group that has been unable to access its bank accounts or process donations, leaving about 45 people without pay. Longtime allies have cut communications with the group to avoid running afoul of the sanctions regime, with potential punishments of up to 20 years in prison and exorbitant fines.

“The Trump administration took the extraordinary step to not only deny Palestinians and victims of US torture equal access to justice, but to criminalize and punish them, their lawyers and advocates, and their partners,” said Katherine Gallagher, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “All victims of international crimes—from Sudan and Ukraine to Palestine and Afghanistan—need and deserve to have an independent and strong ICC able to fulfill its mission of ending impunity, without fear or favor.”

Legal and Constitutional Concerns

Legal analysts have raised serious concerns about the scope of the executive order. The sanctions were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which requires a genuine national emergency arising from a threat that is substantially foreign. As the Libertarian Institute noted, the order’s prohibition on providing “services” to sanctioned individuals includes submitting amicus briefs, offering legal advice, providing training, or sharing analysis—activities that constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, dismissed Rubio’s sovereignty arguments, telling The Guardian: “The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over conduct in the United States. Rubio is dressing up his quest for impunity for American war crimes under the label of national sovereignty, which ignores the sovereign right of other nations to invoke the ICC for crimes committed on their territory.”

International Repercussions

Several countries, including U.S.-allied Venezuela, have announced they would withdraw from the court following Rubio’s statements and the removal of ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan in July. Khan was dismissed by ICC member states over sexual misconduct allegations that first emerged nearly two years earlier. His removal came amid enormous pressure on the court, both internally and from its more than 120 member states.

Analysts at Brookings have warned that sanctions against the court’s officials and partners “haven’t worked in the past and will undermine U.S. credibility abroad.” The institution noted that in 2020, a similar executive order targeting the ICC over its Afghanistan investigation was blocked by a federal judge and later rescinded by the Biden administration in 2021.

What’s Next

The lawsuit adds to mounting legal pressure on the administration’s ICC policy, with courts having already ruled against the executive order multiple times. As the case proceeds through the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs are seeking a court order that would strike down the restrictions on their advocacy and their ability to interact with Palestinian human rights groups and other sanctioned parties.

“The Trump administration seeks a get out of jail free card for whomever it chooses,” said Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “And with this case, we say no.”

James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, framed the stakes more broadly: “Independent courts can function only when judges, prosecutors and rights advocates are free to do their work without fear of political retaliation. We believe that no one is above the law. The executive order shields the perpetrators of war crimes from scrutiny while punishing those who pursue accountability.”

With federal courts having already found the executive order unconstitutional multiple times, and with additional challenges pending, the legal battle over the ICC sanctions regime is far from over. The outcome of this latest lawsuit could have significant implications for the future of international justice and the limits of executive power.