The US Sanctions the ICC Itself — Then a Judge Blocks Enforcement Against Two US Groups: "Cannot Survive Strict Scrutiny"
UPDATE (Oct. 13–14, 2026): Days after sanctioning the court as an institution, the administration lost the first round of the enforcement fight at home. U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) issued a 30-page order Tuesday granting a preliminary injunction to two American advocacy groups — Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG) — that had gathered information for the ICC's Gaza war-crimes investigation and faced penalties under the February 2025 ICC sanctions executive order.
The holding, on First Amendment grounds:
"The court concludes that the 2025 order likely violates plaintiffs' first amendment rights because it constitutes a content-based regulation of their speech-based activities and cannot survive strict scrutiny."
Furman followed the earlier ruling in the law-professors' challenge to the same order, which had found it "constituted a content-based regulation of their speech-based activities and did not survive strict scrutiny." But he stopped short of declaring the executive order facially unconstitutional and rejected the groups' request for a "universal" injunction barring enforcement against anyone — a notable limit at a time when universal injunctions are themselves contested. Lawyer Joseph Pace called the decision "a victory for the first amendment and an important step in unraveling the ICC sanctions regime"; DAWN said it would immediately resume cooperation with the court. The State Department's only response: "the ICC poses an intolerable threat to US sovereignty."
The backdrop, from the prior revision: on Oct. 9, 2026 the administration imposed sanctions on the ICC as an institution — a major escalation from targeted individual sanctions — hours after a former ICC judge won the Nobel Peace Prize. The sanctions bar companies from providing services to the court.
What it means: the sanctions regime now has a two-track problem — escalation abroad (institution-level sanctions) and judicial containment at home (two First Amendment losses in as many terms, with enforcement against DAWN and TAAG blocked and the facial challenge left open). The government's options are to appeal to the Second Circuit, redraft the order, or enforce against other targets and invite the same ruling.