Four U.S. human rights organizations have taken legal action against the Trump administration, challenging the sanctions imposed on the International Criminal Court (ICC). The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges that President Trump overstepped his authority with an executive order in February 2025 that authorized sanctions against ICC personnel and entities supporting the court. These sanctions were a response to arrest warrants issued by the ICC in late 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes in Gaza, which Israel has denied.
The lawsuit contends that the sanctions have impeded the human rights and legal activities of the plaintiffs, violating rights protected under the U.S. Constitution, including free speech. According to Liz Evenson, the international justice director at Human Rights Watch, the Trump administration’s actions undermine the rule of law necessary for safety and human rights promotion globally, rejecting impunity, injustice, and the erosion of international norms.
When contacted for comment on the lawsuit, a White House official criticized the ICC for what they described as politicization and unwarranted investigations of U.S. and allied nationals. The U.S. government has intensified efforts to counter the ICC, accusing it of threatening American sovereignty. This follows previous sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on ICC officials, including judges from various countries.
In a separate legal development, U.S. legal groups sought to reinforce the Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship by challenging executive orders issued by President Trump. Despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of the administration’s attempt to restrict citizenship based on parental immigration status, the recent executive orders have raised concerns over potential citizenship limitations.
The ongoing legal battles reflect the complex and contentious relationship between the U.S. government and international bodies like the ICC, highlighting broader issues of sovereignty, human rights, and legal interpretation.