Here’s a summary of the main claims in the Iverson v. Trump lawsuit complaint (filed May 5, 2025). The Complaint can be downloaded by clicking here.
Eric Iverson, a U.S. citizen and Army veteran serving as lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Darfur-related cases, is suing President Donald J. Trump (and others in their official capacities) over Executive Order 14203. This executive order imposes sanctions on the ICC and its personnel—including the Prosecutor, Karim Khan—stemming from concerns that the ICC might investigate U.S. nationals or those of allied countries.
Key claims in the complaint:
-
First Amendment Violation:
Iverson argues the executive order unlawfully restricts his ability to practice law, communicate, and advocate as required by his job at the ICC, chilling his protected speech and professional legal activities—even though his work does not involve “protected persons” (U.S. nationals or nationals of allies). He claims the order is overbroad, content-based, and viewpoint-discriminatory. -
Exceeding Statutory Authority (Ultra Vires):
The complaint alleges that EO 14203 exceeds the President’s statutory powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Specifically, it forbids the President from using these powers to regulate or prohibit the import/export of “information or informational materials”—which includes legal filings and evidence sharing essential to Iverson’s job. -
No “Unusual and Extraordinary Threat”:
Iverson claims the executive order does not address a genuinely “unusual and extraordinary threat,” as legally required to invoke IEEPA. He points out that Congress has already legislated how to handle the risk of U.S. nationals being prosecuted by the ICC, and has declined to impose such sanctions itself. He argues that the executive order undermines Congress’s careful legislative balance. -
Direct Professional Harm:
Because the ICC Prosecutor is now a sanctioned “Specially Designated National” (SDN), Iverson says he risks severe civil and criminal penalties if he continues his work—despite his activities being unrelated to any U.S. or allied nationals. The order has already forced him to stop supervising investigations and carrying out his core duties, harming Darfur-related justice efforts.
What Iverson is asking the court to do:
- Declare EO 14203 unconstitutional and void.
- Enjoin (block) any enforcement of the executive order against him for his ICC work.
- Prevent civil or criminal penalties related to his professional activities in Darfur cases.
- Award costs and attorneys’ fees.
In short:
Iverson is challenging sanctions that, he says, block him from doing his job at the ICC (with U.S. government support) and violate his constitutional and statutory rights, even though his work has nothing to do with U.S. or allied nationals.
Girards Law Firm specializes in cases involving Severe Injury or Wrongful Death in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Please use the Chat feature on www.girardslaw.com if you would like us to consider your potential legal claims.