Human Rights Groups Sue to Stop Trump's ICC Sanctions

A coalition of major human rights organizations has sued the Trump administration over an executive order authorizing sanctions on International Criminal Court officials and associates. The lawsuit was filed on August 11, 2026, by the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and the Open Society Institute. It challenges US President Donald Trump’s February 2025 order and seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the sanctions immediately.

Plaintiffs’ legal and constitutional claims

The plaintiffs argue the sanctions exceed presidential power, are based on a false national emergency claim, and violate their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They assert the order is a blatantly illegal attack on international justice. These groups say they have been forced to curtail a wide range of work to comply with Trump’s order, violating their constitutional rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They claim the sanctions illegally undermine access to justice for victims of serious international crimes and prevent civil society from working together to end impunity. The lawsuit states the sanctions are predicated almost entirely on a false claim of a 'national emergency' triggered by the ICC’s routine work and investigations.

Context of ICC targeting and administration escalation

The ICC has been a target of opponents of international justice for years. Its investigations into atrocities in Libya, the Philippines, Sudan, and Ukraine drew sustained opposition. The court’s Palestine investigation, which led to arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, and a Hamas official on charges of war crimes, sparked an escalated assault by the Trump administration. The executive order claims the ICC has engaged in illegitimate actions targeting the U.S. And Israel, issued baseless arrest warrants, and asserted jurisdiction without legitimate basis. It states the ICC has no jurisdiction over the U.S. Or Israel because neither is a party to the Rome Statute. The Trump administration used the order as the basis to sanction court prosecutors, judges, and the ICC’s president. It has also used the order to sanction the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967. In July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged to "dismantle" the court by increasing the use of sanctions.

Broad opposition from legal and civil society experts

Amicus briefs from a broad coalition warn the sanctions impair justice efforts, chill academic work, and threaten judicial independence. A coalition of 38 human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the International Federation for Human Rights, detailed how the sanctions have impaired civil society from supporting international justice. Alex Deswaef, president of FIDH, said the sanctions are disrupting the networks that stand with victims and spreading fear far beyond those directly targeted. Former US sanctions officials filed a brief articulating why the administration’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act is a dangerous departure that undermines the credibility of US sanctions. Physicians for Human Rights outlined how the sanctions have made it more difficult for victims of genocide and war crimes to secure justice. Former US ambassadors-at-large for global criminal justice and international prosecutors discussed the ICC's importance and the necessity of judicial independence. The International Criminal Court Bar Association argued the sanctions threaten to undermine the independence of ICC lawyers, posing a grave threat to the rule of law. The New York City Bar Association asserted the order undermines judicial independence and impairs the administration of justice. Legal academics described how the sanctions impair their ability to teach and conduct research, chilling academic freedom.

Representation and next steps

The plaintiffs are represented by Foley Hoag LLP. They sought a preliminary injunction to stop the sanctions.