Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. United States Department of the Treasury
686 F.3d 965
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- AHIF-Oregon is a domestic nonprofit designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) under EO 13,224 and IEEPA; OFAC blocked its assets in 2004 pending investigation.
- AHIF-Oregon's leadership included Al-Aqil and Al-Buthe; Al-Aqil resigned from AHIF-Oregon in 2003, while Al-Buthe remained on the board.
- OFAC redesignated AHIF-Oregon as SDGT in 2008 for three reasons: ownership/control by Al-Buthe, ownership/control by Al-Aqil, and AHIF-Oregon acting as a branch with ties to AHIF-Saudi Arabia that supported designated groups.
- AHIF-Oregon, joined by MCASO, challenged OFAC’s designation and argued due process and Fourth Amendment violations, while the district court granted summary judgment for OFAC on most claims.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmatively upheld two redesignation reasons, reversed on the first ownership theory, and remanded for potential remedies after Fourth Amendment analysis; it also reversed for MCASO’s First Amendment challenge.
- Key issues include: (i) the sufficiency of OFAC’s evidence for redesignation, (ii) procedural due process (notice and use of classified information), (iii) the Fourth Amendment seizure of assets, and (iv) First Amendment restrictions on coordinated advocacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive grounds for redesignation | AHIF-Oregon contends no substantial evidence for ownership by Al-Buthe or Al-Aqil, or for branch status. | OFAC had substantial evidence for two grounds (Al-Buthe ownership/control and branch-office support) and relied on the network with AHIF-Saudi Arabia. | Two of three redesignation reasons supported; ownership by Al-Buthe and branch-office support affirmed. |
| Procedural due process – notice and response | OFAC failed to provide timely, adequate reasons and meaningful opportunity to respond; relied on classified info without mitigation. | OFAC acted within discretion; dissemination of reasons was sufficient and information adequate for response. | OFAC violated due process by failing to provide adequate notice and reasons; violations deemed harmless as to outcome on remand for remedy. |
| Use of classified information | Disclosing or mitigating classified information is required for fairness. | National security allows non-disclosure of classified material in designation decisions. | OFAC may use classified information, but the failure to mitigate fairness violated due process; such errors were ultimately harmless to the outcome. |
| Fourth Amendment seizure of AHIF-Oregon's assets | Blocking assets without a warrant is an unreasonable seizure. | Blocking orders fall under the special needs or general reasonableness exceptions. | Blocking AHIF-Oregon’s assets without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment; remand for potential remedies. |
| First Amendment – coordinated advocacy | Section 2(a) prohibits coordinated advocacy; MCASO seeks to engage in advocacy with AHIF-Oregon. | HLP permits independent advocacy but bans only coordinated activity; choice to apply strict scrutiny. | Content-based prohibition on coordinated advocacy violates the First Amendment; MCASO may engage in independent advocacy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gete v. INS, 121 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir.1997) (due process requires notice of factual and legal bases for seizures)
- Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156 (D.C.Cir.2003) (notice and process in designation cases)
- National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Dep’t of State (NCORI), 251 F.3d 192 (D.C.Cir.2001) (notice and response in designation proceedings)
- Am. Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno (ADC), 70 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.1995) (Mathews due process balancing in government action)
- KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., Inc. v. Geithner (KindHearts I), 647 F.Supp.2d 857 (N.D.Ohio 2009) (summary of classified information disclosure requirements)
- KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., Inc. v. Geithner (KindHearts II), 710 F.Supp.2d 637 (N.D.Ohio 2010) (classification disclosure and due process considerations)
- United States v. Deemer, 354 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir.2004) (emergency exception to warrant for asset seizure context)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010) (First Amendment limitations on coordinated advocacy and material support)
- Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno (ADC) (second mention for context), 70 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.1995) (Mathews due process balancing)