Kimberly Prost, a Canadian judge at the International Criminal Court (ICC), along with two other judges, has filed a lawsuit against President Trump and his administration, alleging that the sanctions imposed upon them exceed executive authority.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the Southern District of New York, represents the latest legal effort to challenge what critics describe as a systematic attempt by the Trump administration to undermine international law. A successful outcome could significantly limit the U.S. government’s capacity to utilize sanctions as a punitive tool against judges for their legal rulings.
Joining Ms. Prost in the suit are Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin and Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda. A copy of the complaint was provided to The New York Times by legal counsel for the plaintiffs.
The conflict began in February 2025, when the State Department imposed sanctions in response to ICC investigations into the actions of Americans and Israelis. Neither the United States nor Israel are members of the Hague-based court, which was established in 2002 to prosecute the gravest international crimes, including genocide.
The list of sanctioned judicial officials grew throughout the year. In June, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sanctioned four judges, including Ms. Alapini-Gansou and Ms. Bossa, following their issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. In August, Ms. Prost was added to the list due to her role in authorizing an investigation into U.S. military personnel at secret C.I.A. sites following the September 11 attacks. Additional judges were sanctioned in December.
The U.S. has also targeted other high-ranking ICC officials, including chief prosecutor Karim Khan. Those sanctioned have faced severe repercussions, including travel bans, asset freezes, and the termination of services from U.S.-based companies.
The legal challenge argues that the sanctions violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as they were not predicated on a national emergency and conflict with federal and international law. Furthermore, the suit contends that the State and Treasury Departments violated the Administrative Procedure Act by making “arbitrary and capricious” decisions, claiming the government failed to demonstrate that the judges fit the legal criteria for such sanctions.
Additionally, Ms. Prost and Ms. Bossa argue that the freezing of their U.S. bank accounts constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements.
While these executive-power arguments mirror those used in previous successful challenges—such as the Supreme Court’s February ruling striking down sweeping global tariffs—some legal experts caution that courts may be more deferential to the executive branch on matters of foreign policy.
“Courts have always said that it is not the domain of federal judges to second-guess factual, policy-infused judgments of emergencies or foreign policy matters that are made by the executive branch,” noted Aziz Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago.
However, some experts believe the administrative-law claims may be more viable. Nabeel Yousef, head of the global sanctions, export and trade practice at Freshfields, suggested that challenging the process of the sanctions, rather than the president’s inherent authority, may be the more effective strategy.
The lawsuit follows a similar case involving Francesca Albanese, a UN human rights reporter. A federal judge initially blocked sanctions against Ms. Albanese for her contributions to the ICC case against Israel, although an appeals court later stayed that injunction. While Ms. Albanese’s case focused on First Amendment grounds, the current lawsuit focuses on the punitive application of executive power.
For Ms. Prost, the impact of the sanctions was immediate and personal. She recounted receiving notice of the sanctions while at home, followed shortly by the cancellation of her Amazon, Google, and banking accounts. Credit cards ceased to function, making basic tasks—from hotel bookings to paying a small highway toll—extraordinarily difficult.
Ironically, Ms. Prost has a professional history of managing sanctions; from 2010 to 2015, she worked with the UN body responsible for sanctions against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. “I’m still a believer in sanctions, believe it or not,” Ms. Prost stated during an interview in The Hague. “Because properly applied, I think they’re an extremely important tool.”