Sovereign Enforcement Integrity Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 29, 2025
Bottom line
The bill asserts federal control over foreign relations and international law enforcement cooperation, preventing states from independently engaging with the ICC.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits state and local law enforcement officers from arresting, detaining, or cooperating with the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding foreign nationals in the United States, if such actions are based solely on an ICC warrant or request. It establishes exceptions for federal authorization through specific congressional legislation or presidential certification for national security interests.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill reinforces U.S. sovereignty by ensuring that decisions regarding international legal cooperation, particularly with bodies like the ICC to which the U.S. is not a party, remain exclusively with the federal government. It prevents potential conflicts with U.S. foreign policy and upholds constitutional principles of federal authority over foreign affairs.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while federal authority is important, this bill could be seen as overly restrictive, potentially hindering cooperation in specific cases where state or local authorities might otherwise assist in apprehending individuals accused of grave international crimes, even if the U.S. is not a party to the ICC. Some might also argue it could send a negative signal about U.S. commitment to international justice, even if the U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it easy for an informed reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on State or Local Enforcement of ICC Actions
This provision explicitly forbids any officer, employee, or agent of a state, territory, District of Columbia, or any political subdivision from arresting, detaining, or otherwise depriving a foreign national of liberty based solely on a warrant, indictment, summons, or other process issued by the International Criminal Court. It also prohibits these entities from cooperating with the ICC in such actions or using public resources to carry them out.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for maintaining U.S. sovereignty and ensuring that foreign policy decisions, particularly those involving international legal bodies like the ICC, are made at the federal level. It prevents a patchwork of state-level actions that could undermine national foreign policy interests.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this blanket prohibition could prevent state and local authorities from assisting in the apprehension of individuals accused of serious international crimes, even when such assistance might align with broader U.S. interests in justice, potentially creating safe havens for such individuals if federal authorization is not forthcoming.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs against potential opportunities for local cooperation in international justice efforts.
Section 3(b)
Federal Authorization for ICC Cooperation
This section outlines the only two scenarios under which state and local law enforcement may cooperate with the ICC. First, if Congress passes specific legislation expressly authorizing cooperation in a particular case. Second, if the President certifies to Congress that such cooperation is essential to a declared national security interest and issues a specific written authorization.