On 18 August 2026, the US Treasury added International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane to its sanctions list under Executive Order 14203, expanding a designation regime that now covers four ICC judges and UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.

The order freezes assets, blocks financial transactions with US institutions, and bars entry to the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio placed the first ICC judges under the order in June 2025, weeks after they issued war-crimes arrest warrants over Gaza. Albanese received her designation six days after publishing a corporate-accountability report.

What does Executive Order 14203 actually do?

The order invokes the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and treats designated persons as threats to US national security. Any "aid"—including research, funding, or material support—to the designated individuals counts as facilitation of an assault on US sovereignty. The Treasury notice accused Albanese of promoting economic and political "lawfare" by cooperating with the ICC, whose jurisdiction neither the US nor Israel accepts.

Penalties under IEEPA include civil fines and criminal exposure for US persons who transact with the named individuals.

Which court challenges are moving?

Two federal lawsuits are now active.

In LC v. Trump, filed by Albanese's husband Massimiliano Calì and their US-citizen daughter, US District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds. The court held that the sanctions burdened protected speech and the family's associational interests. The ruling emphasised that Albanese's residence abroad did not diminish constitutional protections available to her US-citizen relatives, and that her non-binding recommendations could not be financially penalised.

In June 2026, Judges Kimberly Prost, Solomy Balungi Bossa, and Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou filed a joint complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. They argue the President exceeded statutory authority under IEEPA, which requires an "unusual and extraordinary threat" originating outside the United States to justify a national emergency. Routine judicial decisions cannot satisfy that threshold, the plaintiffs contend.

Can international law block the sanctions?

Albanese and the UN rely on the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the UN Charter. For ICC judges, the legal ground differs: the US is not party to the Rome Statute and treats its privileges and immunities as unenforceable at home.

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Medellín v. Texas controls. Treaties generate domestic rights only when their terms are self-executing—precise and unconditional enough to operate without Congressional implementation. Neither the UN immunities convention nor Rome Statute protections meet that test in US courts.

All plaintiffs have therefore framed their claims around the US Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and IEEPA's statutory limits.

What is the practical consequence for practitioners?

The cases test whether IEEPA's "unusual and extraordinary threat" threshold can sustain designations aimed at foreign officials performing international mandates. They also expose the narrow avenues available to international mandate holders who face retaliation from powerful States.

Albanese's 2025 report From Economy of Occupation to Economy of a Genocide drew on over 200 submissions. It named more than 60 corporations allegedly involved in military training, surveillance, biometric data management, home demolitions, and settlement real estate. The named companies included IBM, Google, Caterpillar, and Airbnb. Those corporations continue operations without comparable US measures.

What's next on the calendar?

On 11 August 2026—one week before Akane's designation—Human Rights Watch and three other organisations filed a separate federal lawsuit against the Trump administration. They argue the sanctions unlawfully restrict advocacy and cooperation with the Court.

For practitioners advising US persons on transactions with international officials, the rulings clarify that First Amendment and APA claims offer a viable defence path, while international-law arguments alone will not. The litigation will determine whether domestic courts can restrain sanctions aimed at the architects of international accountability mechanisms, or whether executive authority remains the controlling variable.