Rights Groups Challenge Trump’s ICC Sanctions in First Amendment Case

Two U.S. advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit in Manhattan on July 15 challenging the Trump administration’s sanctions connected to the International Criminal Court. Democracy for the Arab World Now, known as DAWN, and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide argue that the sanctions force them to stop speech, research, and collaboration protected by the First Amendment. The complaint names President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and Office of Foreign Assets Control director Brad Smith as defendants. The court has not ruled on the organizations’ claims.

The dispute centers on Executive Order 14203. The order declares certain ICC efforts an unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy. It authorizes the government to block property belonging to foreign people found to have participated in, or materially assisted, covered ICC investigations or prosecutions. It also prohibits U.S. people from providing or receiving funds, goods, or services to or from people blocked under the order.

The administration’s position is stated directly in the order: the United States and Israel are not parties to the Rome Statute, do not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, and view investigations involving their personnel as a threat to sovereignty. That is the government’s legal and foreign-policy justification. It is not the only question before the court.

“The court has not ruled on the organizations’ First Amendment claims.”

DAWN and the Taxpayer Alliance say the order’s reach has already changed their conduct. According to the complaint, DAWN halted work on ICC submissions, stopped exchanging evidence and legal analysis with sanctioned organizations, ended some advocacy collaborations, and discontinued professional work with U.N. special rapporteur Francesca Albanese. Those statements are allegations by the plaintiffs, not findings by a judge.

The legal fight is about whether the executive branch can apply economic-sanctions authority in a way that burdens Americans’ speech and association. The plaintiffs also argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the restrictions they are challenging. The administration will have an opportunity to answer those arguments in court.

This is not the first challenge to Executive Order 14203. In Smith v. Trump, two human-rights advocates sued after stopping work with ICC investigators and prosecutors. A federal judge in Maine granted those plaintiffs a preliminary injunction in July 2025. That order protected the parties in that case while litigation continued; it did not erase Executive Order 14203 nationwide.

The next meaningful receipts will be the government’s response and any request for emergency relief from the Manhattan court. Until then, the verified fact is narrower than either side’s rhetoric: two organizations say the sanctions are forcing them to abandon protected advocacy, while the administration says the measures defend U.S. sovereignty from an international court it does not recognize.