Kenneth Glad
A new court case has intensified an already complex dispute involving government authority and cross-border legal work. The filing brings several constitutional objections into the same federal proceeding.
Four organizations filed suit against the Trump administration in New York on August 11, arguing that U.S. sanctions connected to the International Criminal Court have disrupted legal, advocacy and humanitarian work.
Human Rights Watch, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Open Society Institute brought the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs want the sanctions regime declared unlawful and its enforcement blocked.
Their claims extend beyond freedom of speech. Human Rights Watch says the organizations allege violations of First Amendment protections for speech and association, Fifth Amendment protections against vague restrictions and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They also contend that the administration exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and acted unlawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act.
“This is an abuse of illegal power that constitutes a frontal attack on the rule of law, the independence of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, the fundamental principles of the international legal order, as well as the principle of equal access to justice,” the complaint said.
Sanctions affect daily work
The lawsuit names President Donald Trump along with senior officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
At issue is Executive Order 14203, which Trump signed on February 6, 2025. It authorizes the blocking of property and financial interests belonging to designated people when those assets fall within U.S. jurisdiction or are controlled by a U.S. person. The order also provides for restrictions on entry into the United States and limits certain transfers of funds, goods and services involving sanctioned parties.
Human Rights Watch says the administration has used the order against eight ICC judges, former prosecutor Karim Khan, two deputy prosecutors, U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and three Palestinian rights organizations: Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. The plaintiffs say those designations have prevented activities including legal representation, submissions to the ICC and cooperation with affected organizations.
The Trump administration says the sanctions are a response to ICC investigations and prosecutions involving U.S. personnel and officials from allied countries, particularly Israel. The February 2025 executive order cites the arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant and argues that such ICC actions threaten U.S. sovereignty, national security and foreign policy interests.
The United States never joined the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC. But Washington’s relationship with the court has shifted over time, with administrations from both parties supporting some investigations while opposing others.
More challenges reach court
The August filing is not the first attempt to challenge the sanctions in federal court. On June 24, according to the Open Society Justice Initiative, three sitting ICC judges filed their own lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, contesting measures imposed on them over judicial decisions involving U.S. and Israeli personnel.
Another case followed in July. AP reported that DAWN and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide sued after the restrictions affected their work involving Palestinian rights and the ICC. DAWN said it had stopped preparing submissions for the court, exchanging evidence and legal analysis with sanctioned organizations and taking part in some joint advocacy.
Pressure on the institution has also moved beyond individual sanctions. AP wrote that Rubio announced a wider campaign in July that included pressing ICC member countries to leave the court, increasing sanctions against organizations working with it and restricting travel by court personnel.
The four organizations in the newest case argue that the consequences now reach directly into work carried out by groups based in the United States. Their complaint asks the federal court to stop enforcement of existing designations, prevent additional sanctions under the order and bar civil or criminal penalties arising from the challenged restrictions.
Sources: AP, Human Rights Watch, American Friends Service Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Society Institute, Open Society Justice Initiative
