Human Rights Groups Sue USA Government, Trump Administration Over Sanctions Targeting the International Criminal Court

Four prominent human rights organizations have filed a lawsuit in a United States federal court challenging the Trump administration’s sanctions against officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a United Nations human rights expert, and Palestinian human rights organizations. Lawsuit challenges executive order as unconstitutional attack on international justice, civil society and human rights advocacy

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and Open Society Institute filed the case on August 11, 2026, before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs argue that the sanctions regime violates constitutional protections and unlawfully restricts the ability of civil society organizations to advocate for accountability and justice for victims of serious international crimes.

The lawsuit challenges Executive Order 14203, issued by President Donald Trump on February 6, 2025, which authorized sanctions against ICC officials and others involved in the Court’s work. According to the plaintiffs, the sanctions have created significant legal and operational obstacles for organizations seeking to cooperate with the ICC and assist victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Sanctions and their impact on human rights organizations

The organizations argue that the sanctions interfere with their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association and also raise concerns under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other US legal obligations.

The lawsuit further contends that the executive order exceeds presidential authority and is based on an alleged national emergency that lacks a sufficient factual basis.

The impact, according to the organizations, extends beyond the individuals and entities directly sanctioned. Sanctioned persons and organizations have reportedly faced frozen or closed bank accounts, rejected financial transactions, restrictions on digital services and travel bans.

The plaintiffs also contend that US-based organizations face severe penalties for providing services to sanctioned individuals or entities. These restrictions have affected activities such as legal representation of victims, submissions to the ICC, human rights research, litigation, advocacy campaigns and humanitarian assistance.

Such restrictions, the groups argue, have a chilling effect on civil society and make organizations outside the United States reluctant to cooperate with sanctioned entities because of their dependence on US financial institutions and technology services.

Implications for victims of international crimes

The dispute has significant implications for victims and survivors of grave international crimes who rely on international justice mechanisms when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to provide effective remedies.

The ICC currently investigates situations involving alleged international crimes in several countries, including Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, the Philippines, Sudan and Ukraine.

The Court’s Palestine investigation has also resulted in arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The organizations involved in the lawsuit maintain that weakening the ICC ultimately risks limiting access to justice for victims across different regions of the world.

For human rights defenders, lawyers and civil society organizations, the case also raises a broader question: Can governments impose sanctions in a manner that effectively prevents independent organizations from communicating, associating and working with international justice institutions?

US campaign against the ICC

The lawsuit comes amid renewed efforts by the Trump administration to increase pressure on the ICC.

On July 13, 2026, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced an escalated campaign aimed at what the administration described as dismantling the ICC. The campaign includes expanded sanctions and efforts to encourage ICC member states to reconsider their membership of the Court.

The US government has argued that ICC investigations involving US nationals represent a threat to American sovereignty.

Critics, however, argue that international criminal jurisdiction is an established component of international law and that individuals suspected of committing serious international crimes may, in certain circumstances, be prosecuted by foreign courts where the alleged crimes occurred.

Previous court challenges

The latest lawsuit is not the first legal challenge to the ICC sanctions regime.

In 2025, federal courts in New York and Maine found that the executive order raised serious First Amendment concerns and issued orders temporarily or permanently restricting enforcement of the sanctions against plaintiffs in those cases.

The latest challenge therefore places the legality of the sanctions regime before the US courts once again, while also highlighting the broader consequences for civil society organizations engaged in international human rights and accountability work.

International concern over ICC sanctions

The sanctions have attracted criticism from a range of international actors, including ICC states parties, the leadership of the Assembly of States Parties, the European Union, United Nations experts, the UN Secretary-General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, civil society organizations and the ICC itself.

The controversy comes at a critical moment for international criminal justice, particularly as conflicts and alleged mass atrocities continue to generate demands for accountability.

The ICC was established as a permanent international court with jurisdiction over individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The Court operates under the principle of complementarity, meaning that it does not replace national courts but may intervene where states are unwilling or genuinely unable to conduct appropriate proceedings.

Nearly two-thirds of UN member states are parties to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC.

What the lawsuit means for human rights defenders

From a human rights perspective, the lawsuit extends beyond the institutional dispute between the US government and the ICC. It concerns the operating environment of human rights defenders, lawyers, researchers and civil society organizations working to document violations and seek accountability.

If organizations can be penalized merely for providing legitimate legal, research, advocacy or humanitarian support to individuals or institutions targeted by sanctions, the plaintiffs argue that the result could be a significant contraction of civic space.

This is particularly important for victims of international crimes who often depend on civil society organizations to document violations, preserve evidence, facilitate legal representation and bring their experiences before national and international accountability mechanisms.

The case therefore places freedom of expression, freedom of association, access to justice, international criminal accountability and the rule of law at the centre of an increasingly significant legal and political dispute.

Our Perspective

As noted by the Founder of Human Rights and Legal Research Centre, Berinyuy Cajetan, we considers the lawsuit an important development in the ongoing debate over the independence of international justice institutions and the protection of civic space.

International criminal justice depends not only on courts and prosecutors but also on lawyers, researchers, journalists, human rights defenders, victims’ representatives and civil society organizations that document violations and support accountability processes.

Efforts that prevent legitimate engagement with international justice mechanisms may have consequences extending far beyond the institutions directly targeted. They can affect victims’ access to remedies and potentially weaken international efforts to combat impunity for the most serious crimes.

The legal challenge will therefore be closely watched by human rights organizations, international lawyers and civil society actors around the world.

The fundamental principle at stake is clear: victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity must have meaningful access to justice, while those working peacefully to secure accountability should be able to exercise their rights without unlawful intimidation or retaliation.

Source: Human Rights Watch news release, August 11, 2026.