Ottawa mum on joining legal case against Trump’s sanctioning of Canadian ICC judge

OTTAWA — Ottawa won’t say whether it will intervene in support of a Winnipeg-born global judge who is asking a U.S. court to reverse sanctions ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump, which have left her unable to use a credit card or most major online vendors.

Washington sanctioned International Criminal Court judge Kimberly Prost nearly a year ago, over her work on a case involving American troops in Afghanistan. Unlike France, Canada has never criticized that decision.

“We haven’t said anything about that,” said Sabine Nolke, a former senior Canadian diplomat whose career focused on international law.

“We do have fairly solid human rights credentials, but we can certainly stand (to be) speaking out more about them.”

Prost previously told The Canadian Press that being sanctioned has deeply affected her ability to travel or enjoy simple things such as using an Amazon smart speaker or buying theatre tickets.

She has said the sanctions are an attack on judicial independence that will not impede the work of seeking justice for victims of serious crimes.

Prost and two other judges are suing Trump and his administration, arguing he exceeded his authority and did not provide due process. The suit was brought in their personal capacity and not by the ICC.

“Congress did not vest the president with authority to violate international law in exercising his authority,” said James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, a legal advocacy group that is representing Prost in the case.

“The sanctions are arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with the law and an abuse of discretion,” he said in an interview.

Prost’s team argues Trump has exceeded the emergency powers that the U.S. Congress has given to the president. They also note that Washington has long voiced concerns about the ICC, which they say is proof there is no emergency that would justify use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“The judges are punished here for an entirely improper purpose, to pressure them to render future decisions more to the administration’s liking,” Goldston said.

Washington has not filed a response to the initial complaint, submitted June 24 to a U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York.

Goldston said his team also sought a preliminary injunction on July 2, giving Washington until July 30 to respond and then his team Aug. 20 to reply. That injunction could freeze the sanctions while the case proceeds.

Nolke previously represented Canada at The Hague as ambassador and described Prost as a friend. She said Canada should be filing a formal document in support of Prost, known as an amicus brief.

Canada has done so in the past, Nolke said, such as on a 1992 case about whether Washington broke an extradition treaty with Mexico when it had kidnapped a man accused of aiding drug cartels.

Ottawa also joined the European Union’s submission to a 2005 U.S. case that ended up abolishing the death penalty for young offenders. Nolke said Ottawa intervened in part out of concern for Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, whom at the time the U.S. had detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Global Affairs Canada would not say whether it’s considering supporting Prost’s case.

“As a founding member, Canada has always been, and remains, a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court and its mandate. Protecting the independence of its judges is critical to the ICC’s effectiveness,” wrote spokeswoman Thida Ith.

“As this matter is currently before the courts, we cannot provide further comment at this time.”

Nolke said an amicus brief can take significant resources to assemble, and Ottawa has other options.

“At the very least, we could express our support,” she said. “That’s the kind of thing — if we want to support the rule of law, and the ICC for that matter — that we should be engaged in more.”

Goldston said it’s up to Canada whether it wants to submit an amicus brief.

“We certainly would welcome the participation of any party that believes it has information and/or argument that would be relevant to the disposition of the issues in this case,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 11, 2026.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press