ICC Sanctions Lawsuit Tests Trump’s Power Over Americans’ Speech

A federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s International Criminal Court (ICC) sanctions asks whether Washington can punish Americans for helping investigate potential war crimes abroad.

The dispute has gained urgency since the administration sanctioned the court itself Oct. 9, expanding a campaign previously directed at individual officials and organizations.

Four human rights groups filed the New York lawsuit Aug. 11. They argue the sanctions force Americans to abandon legal representation, evidence sharing and advocacy protected by the Constitution.

A separate Maine challenge by the ACLU and ACLU of Maine survived a dismissal attempt Sept. 28, preserving an injunction protecting its two plaintiffs while litigation continues.

These cases concern limits on the American government’s sanctions powers. A victory would not require the United States to join the ICC or establish that the court can prosecute any particular American.

Who Is Suing and What They Want

The New York plaintiffs are the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institute. Their Aug. 11 complaint challenges Executive Order 14203 and sanctions imposed under it.

They say the sanctions force them to stop or limit sharing evidence, representing victims and collaborating with sanctioned organizations because that work could expose them to penalties.

Their complaint argues that the restrictions punish constitutionally protected speech and association, fail to clearly explain which activities are prohibited, and exceed the president’s emergency powers.

The American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization, also says the sanctions interfere with humanitarian partnerships undertaken as part of its religious practice. The groups seek to have the sanctions regime declared unlawful and its enforcement blocked.

The separate Maine lawsuit, filed April 11, 2025, involves American advocates Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. Smith supplies evidence about atrocities against Myanmar’s Rohingya population; Radhakrishnan advises on Taliban abuses against Afghan women.

They argue that the sanctions unlawfully prevent them from providing evidence and legal advice to ICC prosecutors, including in cases unrelated to American or Israeli suspects. They seek protection for that work under the First Amendment and federal limits on sanctions powers.

How Foreign Sanctions Reach Americans

Trump’s February 2025 order authorizes sanctions against certain foreign people and entities involved in ICC efforts targeting protected American or allied personnel without their countries’ consent. It freezes designated targets’ assets within U.S. jurisdiction and generally prohibits providing them funds, goods or services.

Americans need not be individually designated to face consequences. Providing prohibited services to a sanctioned target can trigger penalties. Under the governing statute, willful violations can carry criminal fines up to $1 million and imprisonment up to 20 years.

The U.S. Treasury’s Oct. 9 licenses allow specified operations and services to continue. One permits maintaining or winding down court operations through April 7, 2027, but does not generally authorize dealings with separately sanctioned officials.

These exceptions do not amount to a blanket exemption for the plaintiffs’ advocacy. The plaintiffs argue that treating legal advice, evidence and expert analysis as prohibited services turns an economic sanctions program into a restriction on speech.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law underpinning the order, limits what the president can prohibit. 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(3) protects cross-border sharing of information, with exceptions for certain export-controlled material, such as weapons-related technical data, and disclosures prohibited by federal espionage laws.

Section 1702(b)(1) separately protects personal communications that transfer nothing of value. The lawsuits ask whether these protections cover Americans sharing evidence and legal analysis with sanctioned ICC officials and organizations.

The Administration’s Defense

In the New York lawsuit, the government’s Oct. 1 opposition argued that the sanctions regulate transactions with designated foreign people and organizations rather than particular ideas or viewpoints.

It maintained that the restrictions sufficiently protect American and allied personnel from ICC prosecution and that courts cannot review whether the president’s declared emergency is sufficiently unusual or extraordinary.

Also, it disputed the groups’ claim that the prohibitions are too vague and argued that the American Friends Service Committee could pursue its religious mission through other humanitarian partnerships.

In the Maine lawsuit, the government’s Sept. 4, 2025, dismissal motion argued that the advocates had not demonstrated a credible threat of punishment, making their challenge premature.

It said the regulations preserve the statutory information exception and that Treasury guidance excludes constitutionally protected speech from enforcement. It also argued that the advocates should seek Treasury guidance or a license before asking the court to intervene.

Alternatively, the Maine filing argued that any speech restrictions were constitutional because they did not target particular topics or ideas and were sufficiently narrow to protect American and allied personnel.

What Courts Have Actually Decided

In the New York case, the four organizations asked the court Sept. 1 to suspend the entire ICC sanctions regime while litigation proceeds. The case remains pending, and the available filings do not establish that the court has granted that request.

The Maine plaintiffs have secured narrower protection. U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen’s July 2025 preliminary injunction barred penalties against Smith and Radhakrishnan for providing speech-based services to the ICC.

She found their First Amendment challenge likely to succeed because the government had not explained how restricting their work on Myanmar and Afghanistan protected American or allied personnel. The injunction protects those two plaintiffs but does not invalidate the sanctions for everyone.

On Sept. 28, Judge John Woodcock Jr. rejected the government’s arguments that the Maine plaintiffs lacked standing and that their challenge was premature, allowing their First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims to proceed.

He dismissed a separate claim that the president exceeded his statutory authority after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew it. The decision left the injunction intact but did not finally resolve whether the sanctions are unlawful.

Both cases follow an earlier challenge to Trump’s first ICC sanctions regime. In January 2021, Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted preliminary protection to plaintiffs working with the court, finding their First Amendment challenge likely to succeed.

Consequences for Defense Policy

The litigation tests whether protecting American troops can justify restricting Americans who assist investigations of other perpetrators, including groups such as the Taliban. Sanctioning prosecutors can affect cooperation across the board, beyond cases that Washington opposes.

Former senior government officials argued in a September court brief that the administration misuses emergency powers and risks weakening sanctions’ credibility and allied cooperation. Those are arguments supporting the plaintiffs, not judicial findings.

Congress also permits assistance to international efforts against foreign atrocity suspects and expressly authorizes support for Ukraine cases, while protecting covered American and allied personnel from specified funding.

The lawsuits ask whether Washington can preserve those protections without unlawfully silencing Americans whose work supports international accountability.