Trump ICC Sanctions Face US Legal Challenge Over Free Speech

Trump ICC Sanctions Face US Legal Challenge Over Free Speech

RMN News Story Highlights:

• A lawsuit has been filed by human rights advocates challenging Donald Trump’s executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC).
• The advocates argue that the order violates their First Amendment rights by preventing them from sharing information with the ICC’s chief prosecutor.
• Trump’s order followed the ICC’s decision to approve requests for arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.
• A previous legal challenge against Trump’s sanctions on the ICC saw a judge bar their enforcement against individuals assisting the prosecutor.

US President Donald Trump’s executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) is being challenged in a US court by human rights advocates who argue the order is “unconstitutional and unlawful”. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, contends that the order violates their constitutionally protected rights to share information with the ICC’s chief prosecutor.

The executive order, signed by Trump in February 2025, imposed economic and travel sanctions against the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, a British lawyer leading the ICC’s investigations and prosecutions of individuals accused of atrocities in The Hague. The sanctions prohibit US citizens, permanent residents, and companies from providing Khan with services and material support.

Trump issued the order in response to the ICC’s decision the previous year to approve Khan’s requests for arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. 

The order also established a framework for imposing further sanctions on other ICC officials, directing the US treasury department to identify additional individuals for potential targeting. This raised concerns about a broader campaign against the international court.

The legal challenge has been brought by Matthew Smith, the co-founder of Fortify Rights, a human rights organisation focused on south-east Asia, and Akila Radhakrishnan, an international lawyer. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the case on their behalf.

According to the lawsuit, Smith has provided the ICC prosecutor’s office with “evidence of the genocide and forced deportation of Myanmar’s Rohingya people” and assisted the court’s investigators in analysing and developing sources of evidence related to atrocity crimes. 

Smith stated that the order has forced him to stop helping the ICC investigate horrific crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including “mass murder, torture and human trafficking”. He believes the executive order “actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors”.

Radhakrishnan has worked with the ICC as an external advocate and advisor, extensively engaging with the prosecutor’s office on sexual and gender-based crimes in countries such as Afghanistan and Myanmar.

The lawsuit details an instance in December when Radhakrishnan accompanied a group of Afghan women to The Hague to meet with the prosecutor’s office and its investigators working on the Afghanistan inquiry. 

Radhakrishnan explained that she is bringing the case “to prevent my own government from punishing me for trying to hold the Taliban accountable for its systematic violence against women and girls from Afghanistan”.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s order violates the First Amendment by prohibiting their constitutionally protected rights to share information with the ICC’s chief prosecutor and his staff. They state that they “wish to continue communicating with the [prosecutor’s office], but are chilled from doing so because of the substantial risk that they will be penalised”. 

The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the US court that Trump’s order violates the First Amendment and does not comply with emergency powers legislation. They also want the court to prevent the government from “enforcing the speech restrictions” imposed by the order.

The ICC prosecutor’s office actively gathers evidence and information from third parties, including NGOs, victims’ groups, and UN investigators, in its investigations into situations such as those in Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. The lawsuit highlights that the sanctions directly impede this process.

Notably, a similar legal challenge was considered by a federal court in California in 2021 after Trump imposed sanctions against Khan’s predecessor. In that instance, the judge barred the government from enforcing the order against four law professors who assisted the ICC prosecutor, stating they were “likely to succeed on their first amendment challenge”.

This latest legal challenge in Maine underscores the ongoing tension between the US government’s stance on the ICC and the rights of individuals to engage with international justice mechanisms. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the ability of human rights advocates to provide crucial information to the ICC and for the court’s ability to conduct its investigations into alleged atrocity crimes. The case highlights the debate over the reach of presidential executive orders and their potential impact on fundamental constitutional rights.

The legal battle initiated by these human rights advocates represents a significant stand against the Trump administration’s efforts to hinder the work of the International Criminal Court and underscores the importance of protecting the freedom to share information in the pursuit of international justice.