Array of Former U.S. Officials, Rights Groups, Legal Experts Back Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s ICC Sanctions Regime

NEW YORK—An array of former government officials, human rights groups, bar associations, and legal experts from around the world have filed eight amicus briefs supporting a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order authorizing sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) officials, staff, and others affiliated with or assisting the court’s work. American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and the Open Society Institute, a part of the Open Society Foundations, brought the suit on August 11, 2026. They subsequently sought a preliminary injunction to stop the sanctions, which, they say, illegally undermine access to justice for victims of serious international crimes and prevent civil society from working together to end impunity.   

The groups say in their suit that the sanctions are a blatantly illegal attack on international justice. They assert that the sanctions have forced them to curtail a wide range of work in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Their lawsuit also argues the sanctions exceed the president’s powers and are based on a false claim of a “national emergency,” arising out of the work of the ICC, that has no basis in fact.

While the ICC has long been a target of opponents of international justice due to its investigations into atrocities, including in Libya, the Philippines, Sudan, and Ukraine, its Palestine investigation—which led to arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant and a Hamas official on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity—has sparked an escalated assault by the Trump administration on the institution and the rule of law itself. In July, Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged to “dismantle” the court by, among other steps, increasing the use of sanctions. The administration has used the executive order to sanction ICC prosecutors, nine ICC judges, including the court’s president, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, and three leading Palestinian human rights groups. 

The following groups have filed amicus briefs:

• A coalition of 38 human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), details how the ICC sanctions have impaired civil society from supporting international justice efforts. 
• Former U.S. sanctions officials, including in the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), articulate why the Trump administration’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) is a dangerous departure and how it undermines the credibility and effectiveness of U.S. sanctions. 
• The Brennan Center for Justice explains why the executive order and the resulting sanctions exceed the president's authority under the National Emergency Act and IEEPA. 
• Physicians for Human Rights outlines how the ICC sanctions have made it more difficult for victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to pursue and secure justice.
• Former U.S. Ambassadors-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice and prosecutors of international criminal tribunals discuss the importance of the ICC to international justice, the necessity of judicial and prosecutorial independence within the ICC, and the important role that civil society plays within the justice system.
• The International Criminal Court Bar Association (ICCBA) argues that the sanctions threaten to undermine the independence of ICC lawyers and therefore pose a grave threat to the rule of law.
• The New York City Bar Association (NYCBA) asserts that the ICC is an essential component of international justice and that the executive order undermines judicial independence, interferes with the work of the legal profession, and impairs the administration of justice.
• Legal academics, professors, and practitioners whose teaching, scholarship, and professional engagement focus on international law and related fields, describe how the sanctions impair their ability to teach, conduct research, and collaborate within the international legal sphere, chill academic freedom, and violate their First Amendment rights.

Plaintiffs are represented by Foley Hoag LLP. Learn more and read the complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs’ declarations here.