Federal Ban Locks Out State and Local Police From Assisting International Criminal Court Warrants

The Sovereign Enforcement Integrity Act of 2025 is a piece of federal legislation designed to draw a very clear line in the sand regarding international law enforcement. Essentially, it prohibits state, county, and city law enforcement—and anyone working for them—from helping the International Criminal Court (ICC). This includes arresting, detaining, or even restricting the freedom of a foreign national who might be wanted by the ICC (SEC. 3).

If you work for a local police department, city hall, or a state agency, this bill means you cannot use any local resources—money, staff, or buildings—to carry out an ICC warrant or request. The core purpose, according to the bill, is to protect U.S. foreign policy and constitutional authority, arguing that only the federal government should handle these international matters (SEC. 2). It’s the federal government saying, “Foreign policy is our lane, and we don’t want 50 different states messing it up.”

The Federal Gatekeepers

For most people, this legislation seems distant, but it’s really a massive power centralization move. Under this Act, all state and local cooperation with the ICC is completely banned unless one of two high-level exceptions occurs. First, Congress could pass a specific law authorizing cooperation in a particular case. Second, the President can issue a written order overriding the ban if they declare that cooperating with the ICC is absolutely necessary for a declared national security interest (SEC. 3).

Think of it this way: if an individual wanted by the ICC for serious crimes like war crimes or genocide were to show up in your city, the local police would be legally barred from acting on that warrant, even if they wanted to. The decision to detain that person would have to come from Washington, D.C. This structure ensures that any international judicial cooperation is filtered exclusively through the Executive or Legislative branches, effectively removing any local or state discretion.

Where the Federal Law Wins

This bill also includes a powerful preemption clause (SEC. 4). Preemption means that if your state or local government has any rule or law that contradicts this new federal ban—say, a local ordinance that encourages cooperation with international bodies—the federal law wins, and the local rule is invalid. This means that even in jurisdictions that might wish to support international accountability, their hands are legally tied by the federal mandate.

While the bill’s proponents might argue this prevents rogue local actions from derailing sensitive foreign policy, the practical impact is that it builds a significant legal wall around individuals sought by the ICC who manage to enter the U.S. It centralizes control, but it also raises the bar for international justice to be served, potentially frustrating victims and international bodies seeking accountability for serious crimes. The clarity of the ban is high, but the potential for the Presidential national security override to be used broadly—to shield individuals from accountability—is a detail worth watching.