Three International Criminal Court judges filed a 66-page lawsuit in Manhattan federal court on June 24, 2026, challenging sanctions imposed against them under President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14203. The judges argue the sanctions are unlawful and represent an unprecedented attack on judicial independence.
The plaintiffs are Judge Kimberly Prost of Canada, Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, and Judge Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin. All three serve on the ICC’s bench and were targeted by the Trump administration for the court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its ongoing investigation into alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan.
The lawsuit names as defendants President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Acting Attorney General Blanche, and Bradley Smith, director of the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
Why the sanctions were imposed
Trump’s Executive Order 14203, signed last year, authorized sweeping financial and travel sanctions against ICC personnel. The order was a direct response to two actions by the court that infuriated the administration: the ICC’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in Gaza, and the court’s long-running probe into U.S. military conduct during the war in Afghanistan.
Neither the United States nor Israel recognizes the ICC’s jurisdiction. Washington has long maintained that the court has no authority over American or Israeli nationals, a position both Republican and Democratic administrations have held. But Trump’s executive order went further than any previous administration, targeting not only the court’s prosecutors but individual judges with personal financial penalties.
“Financial death penalty”
The sanctions have had devastating effects on the judges’ personal and professional lives, according to the lawsuit. The Treasury Department froze their U.S.-based bank accounts, canceled their credit cards, and blocked their ability to travel internationally. The judges describe these measures as a “financial death penalty” that effectively paralyzes a person’s economic existence.
Because global banks must comply with U.S. financial regulations to access the dollar-based banking system, the sanctions extend far beyond American borders. The judges say they have been unable to pay bills, access savings, or conduct routine financial transactions anywhere in the world. Travel has become nearly impossible, as airlines and hotels refuse service to those on the OFAC sanctions list.
The lawsuit argues that the sanctions are designed not to address any legitimate national security threat but to intimidate and punish judicial officers for carrying out their legal duties. “This is an attack on judicial independence and a threat to the important work of the court to deliver justice for victims of grave crimes,” the judges state in their filing.
The legal challenge
At the heart of the lawsuit is a challenge under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the statute that authorizes presidents to impose economic sanctions during declared national emergencies. The judges argue that the ICC’s judicial actions do not constitute a legitimate national security emergency that would justify the use of IEEPA powers.
Their legal theory holds that the Trump administration stretched IEEPA beyond its intended purpose by declaring the ICC’s arrest warrant and investigations an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security. The judges contend that a court performing its lawful functions under a treaty cannot be treated as an emergency threat requiring financial warfare.
This is the first time that sanctioned ICC judges themselves have sued the United States over such measures. Previous challenges to ICC-related sanctions were brought by the court’s prosecutors or by advocacy organizations. The involvement of sitting judges marks a significant escalation in the legal standoff between The Hague and Washington.
What it means for the ICC and U.S. relations
The lawsuit represents a critical test of the ICC’s ability to function independently in the face of pressure from major powers. If the judges succeed, it could limit the reach of U.S. sanctions against international judicial institutions and reaffirm the principle that judges cannot be punished for their rulings. If the administration prevails, it would set a precedent that the United States can use economic warfare to penalize any international court that takes action against American allies or interests.
The case also highlights the deepening conflict between the United States and the ICC. Relations have deteriorated sharply since the Netanyahu arrest warrant, with Congress threatening further sanctions and some European allies urging Washington to de-escalate. The lawsuit lands at a moment when the court faces existential pressure from both Washington and Moscow, while its investigations into war crimes in Ukraine, Gaza, and elsewhere continue.
The Trump administration has shown no sign of backing down. White House officials have described the sanctions as a necessary tool to protect American sovereignty and Israeli security. But the judges’ lawsuit opens a new front in the battle, taking the fight from diplomatic channels into a U.S. courtroom where the legal basis of the sanctions will face its first direct judicial scrutiny.
–