ICC Judges Sue Trump Administration Over Sanctions - The New York Tim…

International Criminal Court Judges File Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Sanctions

Jeanna Smialek reported from The Hague and Brussels, and Amanda Taub from London.

June 24, 2026

Kimberly Prost, a Canadian judge serving at the International Criminal Court, and two colleagues filed suit in federal court against President Trump and administration officials, alleging that sanctions imposed on them exceeded statutory authority. The complaint, submitted June 24 in the Southern District of New York, names Judges Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin and Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda as co-plaintiffs.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC in 2002 and has maintained since that time that the court lacks jurisdiction over U.S. nationals. The sanctions at issue were applied after the ICC pursued investigations involving U.S. and Israeli nationals, neither country having accepted the court’s authority.

The State Department first designated ICC personnel in February 2025 in connection with those investigations. Additional designations followed. In June 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions on four judges, including Alapini-Gansou and Bossa, citing their participation in decisions to seek arrest warrants for Israeli officials. In August, Prost was added to the list for her role in authorizing an earlier ICC investigation concerning U.S. military and intelligence activities after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Two further judges were designated in December.

The United States has also sanctioned ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. Individuals under sanction face asset freezes, travel restrictions, and limits on transactions with U.S. firms.

The complaint asserts that the sanctions were issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act without a qualifying national emergency and that they conflict with other federal statutes and international obligations. It further claims violations of the Administrative Procedure Act on the ground that the designations were arbitrary and capricious, and alleges that the blocking of U.S. bank accounts belonging to Prost and Bossa infringed Fifth Amendment due-process protections.

The White House and State Department had no immediate comment on the filing. A copy of the complaint was provided to The New York Times by counsel for one of the plaintiffs.

James A. Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, which represents Prost, stated that the designations constituted an attack on judicial independence. The organization is a legal advocacy group that has previously litigated matters involving international institutions.

Legal scholars noted that prior challenges to executive actions under IEEPA have sometimes succeeded on statutory grounds but that courts have historically deferred to the executive on determinations of foreign-policy emergencies. University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq observed that judges have generally declined to review the factual basis for emergency declarations in the foreign-affairs context. Nabeel Yousef of Freshfields suggested that procedural claims under the Administrative Procedure Act might present narrower issues for judicial review, though plaintiffs must ordinarily exhaust administrative remedies before bringing such claims in district court. Neither expert reviewed the present complaint.

A separate sanctions case involving United Nations official Francesca Albanese, who provided information to the ICC concerning Israel, produced a temporary injunction later stayed on appeal. Albanese’s challenge rested in part on First Amendment grounds rather than the statutory and due-process arguments advanced here.

Prost, who previously served from 2010 to 2015 on the U.N. sanctions-monitoring team for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, described the practical effects of the designations in an interview conducted in The Hague. She reported that U.S.-based accounts and commercial services were restricted within hours of the announcement, affecting routine transactions such as online purchases and travel bookings. She stated that she continues to regard sanctions as a legitimate policy instrument when applied in accordance with their statutory criteria.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. No schedule for responsive pleadings has been set.