Four human rights organisations sued the Trump administration on Tuesday to challenge its campaign against the International Criminal Court, arguing that sanctions imposed on the tribunal’s judges and prosecutors are unconstitutional. The groups slammed the order as undermining efforts to hold perpetrators of the world’s gravest crimes accountable.
The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, argues that US President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting the Hague-based court, along with sanctions issued against a UN human rights expert and three Palestinian rights groups, amounts to a “blatantly illegal attack on international justice” that should be struck down, according to a press release accompanying the filing.
The plaintiffs, Human Rights Watch, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Open Society Institute, argue the sanctions regime and the order underpinning it undermine access to justice for victims of serious international crimes worldwide and prevent civil society groups from working together to combat impunity.
What Exactly Does The Lawsuit Argue?
At the heart of the case is a claim that the sanctions have made ordinary human rights work legally perilous. The groups say the financial and legal penalties imposed on the ICC have forced 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.
The lawsuit specifically accuses Trump of exceeding his legal authority when he signed the underlying executive order in February 2025, which authorised sanctions against ICC personnel and any foreign nationals or organisations found to be supporting the court’s work.
Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, framed the legal action as a direct challenge to the administration’s broader posture toward international accountability mechanisms. Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, she said the Trump administration was effectively seeking a “get out of jail free card for whomever it chooses,” adding of the lawsuit, “with this case, we say no.”
Why Did Trump Administration Impose These Sanctions In The First Place?
The sanctions followed the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants in late 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, over alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Israel has rejected the allegations, and Washington denounced both the warrants and the court’s separate investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan as “baseless” when it first announced the sanctions.
Among those sanctioned was Karim Khan, who served as the ICC’s chief prosecutor until he was removed from the post last month, nearly two years after sexual misconduct allegations against him first surfaced. The administration’s approach has continued escalating in recent months rather than softening. Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States was launching a “sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty.”
How Have The Sanctions Affected Plaintiffs’ Work?
For the organisations bringing the case, the harm is described as concrete and ongoing rather than theoretical. The two lead advocacy groups argue the sanctions designations have had a “chilling effect” on their work related to Palestine, restricting their ability to advocate on behalf of victims and cooperate with the court’s investigative processes.
Joyce Ajlouny, General Secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, described the stakes in personal terms, saying, “For many years, I have represented victims in pressing for justice for crimes committed by the powerful, and finally saw much-needed, even if overdue, investigations opened at the ICC. It is an affront to all victims and survivors of war crimes and genocide,” adding that she viewed the executive order as an attempt to intimidate those pursuing accountability.
Is This The First Legal Challenge To ICC Sanctions?
Tuesday’s filing is not the administration’s first encounter with legal pushback over its treatment of the court. Two other US human rights advocates, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, had already filed a separate lawsuit in Bangor, Maine, arguing that the executive order’s restrictions on providing services to sanctioned ICC officials unconstitutionally chilled their own free speech rights.
A separate complaint filed the previous month by two other human rights groups made a similar argument, contending that the sanctions had illegally impeded their ability to advocate on behalf of Palestinians.
Tuesday’s lawsuit is being described by advocates as the latest example of civil society organisations pushing back against what they characterise as the Trump administration’s broader effort to undermine international law and shield governments from accountability for serious human rights violations.
What Pressures Is ICC Facing Beyond US Sanctions?
The court’s difficulties extend well beyond its standoff with Washington. The ICC is currently under significant strain both internally and from a portion of its more than 120 member states, complicating its efforts to maintain the global tribunal’s authority and operational capacity even as it pursues some of its highest-profile cases to date. That external pressure, combined with the loss of its chief prosecutor amid the misconduct scandal, has left the court navigating one of the more turbulent periods in its more than two-decade history.
What Happens Next In The Legal Fight?
The US State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment following the filing of Tuesday’s lawsuit. With multiple overlapping legal challenges now pending against different elements of the sanctions regime, in New York and in Maine, the litigation is expected to test how far executive authority over sanctions policy can be stretched into territory that intersects with the constitutional rights of American advocacy organisations working on international human rights issues.
No hearing date had been set for the Southern District of New York case as of Tuesday afternoon, and the underlying executive order remains in effect while the litigation proceeds.
