Human rights groups sue Trump administration over ICC sanctions
Human rights organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Trump administration executive order that imposes sanctions on individuals connected to the International Criminal Court.
Four prominent human‑rights organisations have taken the Trump administration to federal court, alleging that an executive order issued in February 2025 imposes unlawful sanctions on individuals connected to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The lawsuit, filed on August 11 2026 in the Southern District of New York, challenges the order’s constitutionality, its alleged exceedance of presidential authority, and the claim that it rests on a “pseudo ‘national emergency’ that has no basis in fact.”
The plaintiffs – the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institute – contend that the sanctions regime forces them to curtail a wide range of human‑rights and legal work. They argue that the order infringes on their First‑Amendment rights, Fifth‑Amendment due‑process protections, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Media additions
According to the filing, the order targets ICC prosecutors, eight ICC judges, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, and three Palestinian human‑rights NGOs. The plaintiffs say the sanctions “undermine access to justice for victims of serious international crimes around the globe and prevent civil society from working together to combat impunity.”
“The U.S. government’s effort to dismantle the ICC and punish people seeking justice for grave human rights violations harm far more than the individuals and groups seeking sanctions,”
Joyce Ajlouny, general secretary, American Friends Service Committee, via UPI
Joyce Ajlouny, speaking on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee, described the order as an “intimidation” tactic that threatens the ability of human‑rights defenders to advocate for dignity and accountability. Katherine Gallagher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, added that the administration has taken “the extraordinary step to deny and punish victims of torture and war crimes alongside their legal representatives.”
“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,”
Katherine Gallagher, Center for Constitutional Rights, via HRW
The legal challenge arrives against a backdrop of escalating diplomatic pressure on the ICC. In July 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a plan to “systematically disable” the court, promising increased use of sanctions, visa revocations and travel bans against ICC personnel. Rubio labelled the tribunal “an intolerable threat to U.S. Sovereignty” and warned that “the ICC and its friends are waging a war against our country.”
Beyond the United States, the sanctions have produced tangible operational harms. The plaintiffs detail that sanctioned individuals and the three Palestinian NGOs have endured frozen or closed bank accounts, rejection of financial transactions, denial of access to digital services, and travel bans. U.S. Entities that continue to provide services to the sanctioned parties risk criminal penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment and substantial fines.
The ICC itself, established after the 1990s genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, currently conducts 18 investigations worldwide, including in Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, the Philippines, Darfur (Sudan) and Ukraine. The Palestine investigation has already produced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on war‑crimes and crimes‑against‑humanity charges.
Human‑rights groups argue that the sanctions undermine not only the ICC’s capacity but also the ability of victims to access a court of last resort. The filing notes that the order “prevents the plaintiffs from representing victims of war crimes as legal counsel, making legal and policy submissions to the ICC, and collaborating with the sanctioned Palestinian human‑rights groups to undertake litigation, coordinate advocacy campaigns, research human‑rights violations, or provide humanitarian aid.”
“These sanctions are an assault on the rule of law, independent judges and prosecutors, and civil society in the United States and around the world,”
James Goldston, executive director, Open Society Justice Initiative, via HRW
James Goldston’s statement underscores a broader critique that the sanctions betray historic U.S. Leadership in international justice. Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, echoed the call for government protection of the ICC, asserting that “governments should step up to protect the ICC and those seeking justice before it to ensure no one is above the law.”
The lawsuit also references earlier court decisions. In 2025, federal courts in New York and Maine found that the February 2025 executive order violated the First Amendment, issuing temporary or permanent injunctions against enforcement in those jurisdictions. Those rulings form part of the plaintiffs’ argument that the current sanction regime is similarly unconstitutional.
International reaction has been uniformly critical. The European Union, the United Nations Secretary‑General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and a majority of UN member states have publicly condemned the sanctions, describing them as an “unlawful attack on international justice.” The ICC’s Assembly of States Parties and the court’s leadership body have likewise spoken out, warning that the U.S. Actions threaten the court’s ability to fulfill its mandate.
Attorney Andrew Loewenstein, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, framed the case as a defense of civil‑society space: “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.”
As the case proceeds, the plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction that would invalidate the sanctions and restore their ability to collaborate with ICC‑related actors. The court’s decision will determine whether the executive order can survive judicial scrutiny or be struck down as an overreach of presidential power. Both the administration and the plaintiffs have signaled readiness for a prolonged legal battle, suggesting that hearings and potential appeals could extend well into 2027.
Observers note that the outcome could reverberate beyond the United States, influencing how other jurisdictions handle sanctions tied to international judicial bodies. The courts’ interpretation of the executive order’s alignment with constitutional protections and international law will be a key indicator of the limits of executive authority in the realm of foreign‑policy sanctions.
