Eight amicus briefs have been filed by human rights groups, former US officials, bar associations and legal experts backing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s sanctions regime targeting International Criminal Court (ICC) officials and those assisting its work.
Groups Challenge Trump’s Sanctions
The groups filed the briefs in support of a lawsuit brought on August 11, 2026, challenging Trump’s executive order authorising sanctions against ICC officials, staff and others linked to the court.
The American Friends Service Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and Open Society Institute brought the suit. They have also asked a US court for a preliminary injunction to halt the sanctions.
The plaintiffs argue that the measures restrict efforts to support victims of serious international crimes and hinder civil society groups working to promote accountability.
Lawsuit Raises Constitutional Claims
According to the groups, the sanctions have forced them to limit parts of their work. They argue that the restrictions violate rights protected by the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The lawsuit also challenges the president’s authority to impose the measures. The plaintiffs argue that the administration relied on an alleged national emergency linked to ICC activities that they say lacks a factual basis.
Meanwhile, the legal challenge comes as tensions between the Trump administration and the ICC have intensified.
ICC Palestine Probe at Centre of Dispute
The ICC has faced opposition over investigations into alleged atrocities in Libya, the Philippines, Sudan and Ukraine.
However, its investigation into the situation in Palestine has brought renewed attention to the court. The investigation led to arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and a Hamas official over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, according to the source material.
In July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged to “dismantle” the court, including through increased use of sanctions.
The administration has since used the executive order to sanction ICC prosecutors, nine judges, including the court’s president, a UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory and three Palestinian human rights organisations.
Eight Groups Back Legal Challenge
The amicus briefs came from several groups and experts, each focusing on different aspects of the sanctions.
A coalition of 38 human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and the International Federation for Human Rights, said the sanctions have affected civil society groups supporting international justice efforts.
Former US sanctions officials, including former officials from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, questioned the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. They argued that the approach could undermine the credibility and effectiveness of US sanctions.
The Brennan Center for Justice also argued that the executive order and sanctions exceed presidential authority under the National Emergencies Act and IEEPA.
Lawyers, Experts Warn of Wider Impact
Physicians for Human Rights said the sanctions have made it harder for victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to seek justice.
Former US ambassadors-at-large for global criminal justice and prosecutors from international criminal tribunals also highlighted the importance of ICC independence and the role of civil society in international justice.
The International Criminal Court Bar Association said the sanctions threaten the independence of ICC lawyers. The New York City Bar Association similarly argued that the executive order interferes with legal work and the administration of justice.
Legal academics, professors and practitioners also said the sanctions have affected their ability to teach, conduct research and collaborate on international law.
The plaintiffs are represented by Foley Hoag LLP.
