Key facts
- Three International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have sued U.S. President Donald Trump in a New York federal court.
- The judges accuse Trump's administration of imposing sanctions that attack judicial independence.
- The sanctions were enacted under Executive Order 14203 for their work on investigations involving Israel and the United States.
- The lawsuit argues the sanctions exceed presidential authority, conflict with other U.S. laws, and violate constitutional rights.
- This marks the first time ICC judges have personally sued to challenge their designation under the executive order.
Three sitting judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, summoning President Donald Trump to respond to accusations that his administration's sanctions constitute an "attack on judicial independence and the rule of law." The judges, Kimberly Prost, Solomy Balungi Bossa, and Reine Alapini-Gansou, are challenging sanctions imposed under Executive Order 14203, signed on February 6, 2025, which declared a national emergency over ICC investigations into U.S. and Israeli nationals.
The complaint, filed by the judges and represented by co-counsel including James Goldston of the Open Society Justice Initiative, argues that the sanctions exceed the authority Congress delegated to the president under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). They contend the measures conflict with the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA), which does not authorize sanctions for such actions. The judges also dispute the existence of a genuine emergency, noting that U.S. objections to the court's jurisdiction over non-party nationals are long-standing.
Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts that freezing U.S.-based assets of Prost and Bossa breaches the Fifth Amendment by depriving them of property without due process and taking private property without compensation. The designations are also challenged as violating the Administrative Procedure Act, being "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion," with no specific evidence provided to justify them or consideration of the damage to international accountability efforts.
This case is the fifth to challenge Executive Order 14203, but it is the first to specifically target the designation of the judges themselves. Previous suits have focused on restrictions on free speech for those assisting the court. The judges describe the sanctions as "tantamount to the financial death penalty," with Prost having her U.S. bank account frozen, credit card access revoked, and accounts with American companies limited or canceled, impacting her ability to access essential services like health insurance.