The Trump administration previously issued sanctions on certain persons associated with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and subjecting people who provide certain services to such persons to civil and criminal penalties. On July 30, 2025, the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York held that the President's Executive Order violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights because it constituted "content-based" regulation of their speech-based activities and could not survive strict scrutiny.
The Executive Order at issue imposed sanctions against persons who provided certain aid or services to the ICC or additional specific persons designated pursuant to the Order. The President issued the Order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and declared a national emergency with respect to "any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute" any U.S. personnel without the consent of the United States.
IEEPA generally grants the President certain powers upon declaration of a national emergency with respect to "any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States." 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a). When the President declares such an emergency, the President may block, regulate, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Persons designated under IEEPA are listed on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) Specially Designated National's (SDN) List. Any U.S. person who engages with designated persons in a prohibited way is subject to civil and criminal penalties under IEEPA.
The Order prohibited "the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interest in property are blocked" pursuant to the Order. The Order did not provide any further definition of "services to or in support of" or "services by, to, or for the benefit of," which was the key language that Plaintiffs argued was violative of their First Amendment rights. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Order barred them from engaging in free speech to support the ICC.
In its decision, the Court issued a permanent injunction. Specifically, the Government was enjoined from enforcing IEEPA's civil or criminal penalty provision against the Plaintiffs for the conduct referenced in the opinion and in the Executive Order. It is highly likely that there will be continued tensions and litigation concerning U.S. economic sanctions and First Amendment rights.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
