The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has upheld sanctions against Francesca Albanese, a human rights lawyer and UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine. The decision comes as her legal challenge remains unresolved. These sanctions, initially imposed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in July 2025, fall under Executive Order 14203. The order was activated following Albanese’s advocacy efforts, which called for International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants targeting Israeli leadership, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. She has also worked to hold international corporations accountable for alleged participation in activities deemed genocidal in Gaza by her and other human rights advocates.
Albanese’s situation was exacerbated by accusations from Rubio that she sought to influence the ICC to take legal actions against Israeli and US nationals without those nations’ consent. This led to her designation by the Office of Foreign Assets Control as a specifically designated national, resulting in the freezing of her financial assets and travel restrictions that prevent her from visiting her US citizen daughter, who now faces legal risks due to her association with Albanese. More details about the repercussions can be found here.
In response, a lawsuit was filed by Albanese’s husband, Massimiliano Cali, with their daughter, claiming the sanctions infringe upon First Amendment rights. Although a district court initially ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction against the sanctions, the US government appealed. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, partially stayed this injunction, allowing sanctions to remain active during the appeals process.
This legal impasse also involves a concurring opinion from Judge Kastas, which suggests that Albanese’s defense invoking the First Amendment might be unconvincing. He noted that non-resident aliens do not benefit from Constitutional protections when outside US borders, and emphasized that considerations of foreign policy and national security necessitate maintaining the sanctions. Legal analysis by other sources suggests that the court’s rationale reflects longstanding judicial precedents regarding Constitutional rights for foreign nationals. UN Watch remarked that the concurring opinion casts doubt on the robustness of the First Amendment defense in this scenario.