Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Sanctions on Two Groups Helping the International Criminal Court, What the Ruling Does and Does Not Cover

On October 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction protecting two U.S.-based groups, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG), from certain federal penalties for helping the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court found they are likely to succeed on their claim that the sanctions’ “services” ban violates the First Amendment as applied to their speech.

The Limits of the Ruling at a Glance

Headlines can make this ruling sound bigger than it is. Here is what it does and does not do:

• It protects only the plaintiffs. DAWN, TAAG and two individual plaintiffs are covered. Other organizations are not automatically protected.
• It covers only specified speech-related activities, such as submitting evidence to the ICC, research, training, publishing and advocacy.
• It blocks only IEEPA civil and criminal penalties for conduct alleged to violate the executive order’s services prohibition.
• It does not strike down Executive Order 14203. The court declined to declare it unconstitutional on its face.
• It is not a universal (nationwide) injunction. The court rejected that request.
• It does not cover President Trump personally. The order binds the other federal defendants.
• It does not cancel the ICC’s October 9, 2026 Treasury designation, and it does not remove restrictions on funds, goods or non-speech services.
• It is temporary. A final decision on the merits has not been issued.

Quick Facts

Detail	What the court record shows
Ruling date	October 13, 2026
Judge	U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman
Court	U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Case	Democracy for the Arab World Now, Inc. et al. v. Trump et al.
Case number	1:26-cv-05957-JMF
Organizational plaintiffs	DAWN and TAAG
Individual plaintiffs	Tarik Kanaana and William Doares
Order challenged	Executive Order 14203 (signed February 6, 2025)
Main legal issue	Whether the services prohibition restricts speech protected by the First Amendment
Decision	Preliminary injunction granted in substantial part
What is blocked	Specified IEEPA civil and criminal penalties against the plaintiffs for covered speech-related activities
What remains in place	Designations, restrictions on funds and goods, and certain non-speech services
Next deadline	October 20, 2026: joint letter on next steps
Final judgment on the executive order	Not issued
Official documents	See the Official Sources section at the end of this article

What Did Judge Furman Order?

Judge Furman granted the plaintiffs’ motion in substantial part. A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order that preserves the situation while a lawsuit continues. It is not a final judgment.

The order bars the federal defendants, other than President Trump, from enforcing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s (IEEPA) civil and criminal penalty provisions against the plaintiffs. The protection applies only to the specific conduct described in their complaint and the court’s opinion, and only to the extent that conduct is alleged to violate the executive order’s services prohibition.

The court’s central finding was that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim. It reasoned that the services prohibition, as applied to them, regulates speech based on its content or purpose and could not survive strict scrutiny, the most demanding constitutional test.

The court also relied substantially on an earlier ruling from the same court involving a similar challenge to the 2025 order.

Who Are DAWN and TAAG?

Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)

DAWN is a U.S.-based nonprofit focused on human rights and accountability in the Middle East and North Africa. Before the 2025 order, it submitted information to the ICC about alleged crimes by Israeli officials in the occupied Palestinian territory and the alleged role of U.S. officials. It also worked with Palestinian human rights groups and UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.

The court described activities including exchanging evidence and legal analysis, coordinating advocacy, publishing material, arranging events and training, and communicating with congressional staff. DAWN said it stopped some of this work out of fear that authorities would treat it as prohibited services to designated persons.

Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG)

TAAG is an American taxpayer group formed to gather and submit evidence to the ICC about the alleged role of U.S. officials in atrocity crimes abroad. Tarik Kanaana is identified as president and William Doares as treasurer; both joined as individual plaintiffs. TAAG planned an Article 15 submission to the ICC. Under Article 15 of the Rome Statute, the ICC Prosecutor may receive information about alleged crimes and decide whether to proceed.

These descriptions come from the court record. They reflect the plaintiffs’ allegations and evidence, not a judicial finding that the underlying allegations about the conflict are true.

What Is Executive Order 14203?

President Trump signed Executive Order 14203, “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,” on February 6, 2025. It declared a national emergency over ICC actions involving U.S. personnel and certain allies, and authorized sanctions, including asset freezes and transaction bans, against persons who engage in or materially assist specified ICC activities.

Under the order and later designations, the administration has sanctioned ICC officials, including prosecutors and judges, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, and several Palestinian human rights organizations. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers the program.

The administration’s position is that the ICC has improperly claimed jurisdiction over U.S. and Israeli nationals who are not parties to the Rome Statute, and that sanctions protect U.S. sovereignty and foreign-policy interests.

The plaintiffs’ concern was the term “services.” They argued it could be read broadly enough to include sharing evidence, publishing analysis, joining educational events or coordinating research with designated persons.

Related article: VA COLA Increase 2027, 3.6% Raise Expected, Estimated VA Disability Pay Rates and What Veterans Need to Know

The Laws Behind the Dispute

Law or authority	Why it matters here
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1707	The statute the sanctions rest on. Section 1705 sets civil and criminal penalties for violations. Criminal penalties can include substantial fines and up to 20 years in prison, and civil penalties are adjusted annually for inflation.
National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.	Governs presidential declarations of national emergency, which IEEPA powers depend on.
IEEPA informational materials and personal communications exemptions, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)	Congress carved out certain informational materials and personal communications from IEEPA’s reach. How far these exemptions protect advocacy and evidence-sharing is central to disputes like this one.
First Amendment	Protects speech, association and petitioning. The ruling rests on this ground.
Fifth Amendment (Due Process)	The plaintiffs also raised vagueness-type concerns about what “services” covers. The October 13 decision focused on the First Amendment.
Strict scrutiny	A content-based speech restriction must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)	The Supreme Court upheld a ban on providing material support, including certain speech coordinated with designated terrorist groups. The government commonly relies on this case in sanctions-and-speech disputes, and it is a key background authority for the limits on First Amendment protection here.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the Winter v. NRDC standard	Govern preliminary injunctions. The plaintiffs must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities and that an injunction is in the public interest.
Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025)	The Supreme Court limited universal injunctions. This background helps explain why relief in cases like this is typically tailored to the plaintiffs.
Rome Statute of the ICC, Articles 12 and 15	Article 12 addresses jurisdiction, and Article 15 allows the Prosecutor to receive information from outside sources, which is what TAAG planned to submit.
American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002, 22 U.S.C. § 7421 et seq.	An earlier U.S. law restricting cooperation with the ICC and protecting U.S. personnel. It shows the long-running U.S. opposition to ICC jurisdiction over Americans.
ICC-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 600	OFAC’s implementing regulations for the program.

Why Did the Judge Find a Likely First Amendment Violation?

The services prohibition was treated as content-based

A restriction is generally content-based when its application depends on what a person says or why. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs could face penalties for speech if it was considered to benefit designated ICC personnel or other designated parties. The same communication could be treated differently depending on whom it supported. That led the court to apply strict scrutiny.

National security was not enough for these activities

The government argued that the sanctions serve important interests in protecting U.S. personnel, allies and foreign policy, and that the restrictions could be applied consistently with the First Amendment. The court accepted that these interests are important but concluded they did not justify penalizing the plaintiffs’ specified speech-related activities. In the court’s view, the prohibition reached more speech than necessary, including research, training, publications and legal advocacy.

Why the relief stayed narrow

The services prohibition also covers conduct that may involve no protected expression, such as financial services, shipping, logistics and travel. Those raise different legal questions from submitting evidence or publishing legal analysis. The court therefore blocked specified penalties against the plaintiffs for the covered activities rather than striking down the whole program.

What the Ruling Does and Does Not Block

Issue	Effect of the ruling
DAWN’s specified speech-related advocacy	Protected against the covered IEEPA penalties
TAAG’s specified ICC submissions and advocacy	Protected against the covered IEEPA penalties
Tarik Kanaana and William Doares	Included as individual plaintiffs
Other organizations not in the case	Not automatically protected
President Trump personally	Excluded from the injunction
Designations under the 2025 order	Left undisturbed
Transfers of funds or goods to designated persons	Government authority generally unaffected
Financial and other non-speech services	Government may still enforce
Entire executive order	Not declared facially unconstitutional
Sanctions on the ICC as an institution	Not canceled by this case-specific injunction

Another advocacy group cannot simply assume it has the same protection. Its position depends on the court orders that apply to it, its specific activities and current OFAC rules.

How This Relates to the October 9, 2026 ICC Sanctions

Four days before the ruling, the Treasury Department announced sanctions against the ICC as an institution. OFAC added the court to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List and issued several general licenses covering specified transactions.

That is a separate development. The October 13 injunction concerns penalties against the plaintiffs for defined conduct. It does not remove the ICC’s designation or cancel restrictions affecting businesses, service providers or other organizations dealing with the court. It is not blanket permission to conduct any transaction involving the ICC or a sanctioned person.

Background: How the ICC Became Part of the Dispute

The ICC is a treaty-based court created by the Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002. It prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression where it has jurisdiction. Neither the United States nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute, and both oppose the ICC’s jurisdiction over their nationals in these circumstances.

The dispute intensified after the ICC issued arrest warrants on November 21, 2024, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity connected to the Gaza conflict. The allegations are contested, and an arrest warrant is not a conviction. The 2025 executive order followed.

Timeline

Date	Milestone
November 21, 2024	ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant
February 6, 2025	Executive Order 14203 signed
October 9, 2026	Treasury announces sanctions on the ICC as an institution
October 13, 2026	Judge Furman grants preliminary injunction to DAWN, TAAG and the individual plaintiffs
October 20, 2026	Deadline for the parties’ joint letter on next steps

What Happens Next?

The parties must file a joint letter by October 20, 2026. The court noted that its reasoning, together with its earlier decision in a similar case, might be enough to resolve the First Amendment claims. The parties must say whether anything remains to be litigated and, if not, whether the court should enter a permanent injunction and final judgment.

No final judgment has been entered. The government may appeal to the Second Circuit, and related cases brought by other organizations and individuals could produce additional or different rulings.

Who Is Affected?

• DAWN, TAAG and the two individual plaintiffs: They may continue the covered activities without the threat of the specified IEEPA penalties, subject to the order’s terms.
• Other advocacy groups, lawyers and researchers: They are not automatically covered. Anyone working with the ICC or designated persons should get qualified legal advice before acting.
• Businesses and financial institutions: Compliance obligations under OFAC rules remain in place.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Judge Jesse Furman rule on October 13, 2026?

He granted a preliminary injunction in substantial part. It restricts specified federal penalties against DAWN, TAAG and the individual plaintiffs for defined speech-related activities. He did not strike down the ICC sanctions program.

Which organizations are protected?

The plaintiffs: DAWN, TAAG, Tarik Kanaana and William Doares. The order does not automatically cover other groups.

Why did DAWN and TAAG sue?

They argued the services prohibition could penalize submitting information to the ICC, sharing legal analysis, research, training and publishing, and that the uncertainty chilled their speech and association.

Did the judge declare Executive Order 14203 unconstitutional?

No. The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their as-applied First Amendment challenge. It declined to declare the order facially unconstitutional or to issue a universal injunction.

Does the ruling cancel sanctions on the ICC itself?

No. The ICC’s Treasury designation and other ICC-related restrictions remain unless changed by other orders or OFAC action.

Can the administration still enforce ICC-related sanctions?

Yes. The court left designation authority intact and did not generally remove the government’s ability to penalize prohibited transfers of funds or goods or certain non-speech services. The exact effect depends on the activity and applicable licenses.

Is this a nationwide injunction?

No. The court rejected a universal injunction. Relief is limited to the plaintiffs.

Is the injunction permanent?

No. It is preliminary. The court will consider permanent relief after the parties’ October 20 joint letter.

Can the government appeal?

Yes. An appeal to the Second Circuit is possible.

Does this ruling decide whether war crimes occurred in Gaza?

No. The case concerns U.S. sanctions authority and the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, not the truth of the ICC allegations.

Does the IEEPA exemption for informational materials protect advocacy groups?

This case was decided on First Amendment grounds. Whether and how far the statutory exemptions apply depends on the facts and the court’s reading, so anyone relying on them should seek legal advice.

Official Sources

• Court Opinion and Order, Democracy for the Arab World Now, Inc. et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:26-cv-05957-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2026): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2026cv05957/668333/40/
• Executive Order 14203, Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/
• U.S. Treasury Department, October 9, 2026 ICC Sanctions Action: https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20261009
• OFAC, International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions: https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/international-criminal-court-related-sanctions
• International Criminal Court, November 21, 2024 Arrest Warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges?embed=true
• DAWN’s Statement on the October 13, 2026 Ruling: https://dawnmena.org/u-s-court-blocks-enforcement-of-icc-sanctions-against-groups-advocating-for-palestinian-rights/
• Related AllAboutLawyer.com coverage: Judge Orders White House to Restore Access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico, Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287: https://allaboutlawyer.com/trump-white-house-press-access-lawsuit/

Legal disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com provides general legal information, not legal advice, and is not a law firm. This article summarizes a preliminary federal court ruling as of October 14, 2026. The injunction applies only to the plaintiffs and the conduct specified in the order. Later court decisions, appeals, new designations or OFAC guidance may change the legal position. Statutory references are for general orientation; verify citations and penalty amounts against current official text. If you or your organization may be affected by ICC-related sanctions, consult a qualified attorney.