Federal courts in 2025 handed U.S. plaintiffs First Amendment victories against Executive Order 14203, President Trump's sanctions regime targeting the International Criminal Court — but the order itself remains in force, and four new lawsuits filed in 2026 now ask federal district courts to settle its constitutional validity once and for all.

EO 14203, issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declares that "any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute" U.S. persons and nationals of non-consenting U.S. allies constitutes an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) then designates covered individuals as "specially designated nationals," meaning "[t]heir assets are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them."

What have the courts decided so far?

Three early rulings set the template. In Rona v. Trump, involving U.S. plaintiffs who provided information and assistance to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor, the court reached the merits and held that EO 14203 violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. In Smith v. Trump, the court found U.S. plaintiffs supplying evidence, expertise, and advice to the OTP were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims and granted a preliminary injunction. A third case, Iverson v. Trump, ended in voluntary dismissal after OFAC licensed the plaintiff's work as an ICC prosecutor, mooting his claims.

The litigation echoes the first ICC sanctions order from 2020, later revoked by President Biden. In Open Society Justice Initiative v. Trump, a federal court enjoined enforcement against an NGO and four law professors who had engaged extensively with the ICC, finding the order overly burdensome of protected speech.

Each ruling, however, offered relief only to the plaintiffs before the court. None invalidated EO 14203 or its 2020 predecessor.

Who has been designated?

Designations under the order now include:

• Former ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, who sought warrants against Israeli leaders in 2024;
• ICC Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou, who authorized arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant;
• UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese;
• Palestinian human rights organizations;
• Most recently, the ICC President and a senior trial lawyer.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has framed the campaign as an effort to "dismantle the threat" posed by the ICC. President Trump, addressing the UN General Assembly, called on all ICC member states to withdraw from the court. The administration described the latest designations as part of an "unwavering mission to protect Americans from this sham of a court."

What does the new litigation add?

The four lawsuits filed in 2026 raise free speech, due process, and associational claims. In L.C. v. Trump, the U.S.-citizen minor daughter of designated rapporteur Albanese and her father sued. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding irreparable harm to L.C.'s familial relationship with her mother, her freedom of travel as "a constitutionally protected liberty interest," and the family's property interests in the United States. The court also found plaintiffs likely to succeed on a First Amendment claim asserted on Albanese's behalf. The D.C. Circuit has partially stayed the injunction pending appeal, returning Albanese to the designations list and teeing up the third-party standing question.

In Prost v. Trump, three ICC judges — foreign nationals — directly challenged their own designations, arguing the sanctions restrict their engagement with U.S.-based human rights NGOs. The administration contests their non-citizen standing and their Fifth Amendment claims on national-security and foreign policy grounds.

The U.S.-based NGO plaintiffs in Dawn v. Trump and AFSC v. Trump go further. DAWN plaintiffs say they stopped professional activities that could count as "providing support" to designated individuals and halted work on ICC submissions implicating the United States and Israel in war crimes investigations. AFSC plaintiffs allege the regime prohibits speech in support of non-designated individuals, including those who "fear their own punishment" for engaging with the plaintiffs — a chilling effect reaching entirely non-sanctioned parties.

How will the government defend the order?

In Rona, Smith, and L.C., the government relied on national-security and foreign policy interests in protecting U.S. and allied personnel from non-consensual ICC jurisdiction. None of the courts found those justifications sufficient, treating the restrictions as overinclusive — they barred speech-based services to ICC prosecutions and investigations unrelated to the government's stated protective interest, including matters the United States had endorsed.

The government invokes Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, where the Supreme Court deferred substantially to national-security judgment in upholding restrictions on coordinated support to designated foreign terrorist organizations. Whether Holder extends to EO 14203 remains a separate question.

What is at stake for practitioners?

For U.S. persons, the practical exposure is concrete: providing prohibited support or services aimed at holding a foreign leadership or U.S. personnel accountable before the ICC risks sanctions, and restrictions reach Americans who maintain personal or professional relationships with designated foreign nationals. The core First Amendment question going forward is whether the restrictions are adequately tailored to the government's stated interests or, as earlier courts found, restrict more speech than necessary. With Prost, AFSC, and DAWN still pending, the courts may finally define the outer limits of presidential sanctions authority under IEEPA when its exercise reaches constitutionally protected activity inside the United States.