Kadi v. Geithner
42 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- Kadi, a Saudi citizen, challenges OFAC's SDGT designation under IEEPA and EO 13224.
- OFAC designated Kadi on Oct. 12, 2001, blocking his assets without prior notice.
- The record includes a 2800-page administrative file plus a classified portion reviewed by the court.
- Kadi petitioned for reconsideration; OFAC issued a March 12, 2004 memorandum denying continued designation.
- Plaintiff asserts APA, IEEPA, First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment violations and seeks discovery and amendment.
- Court grants summary judgment to defendants, denies discovery and amendment, and upholds designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA standard of review and discovery | Kadi argues genuine disputes of material fact and needs discovery. | Record supports OFAC's decision; discovery unnecessary. | Summary judgment appropriate; Rule 56(f) discovery denied. |
| Is OFAC's SDGT designation arbitrary or capricious under the APA? | Record is insufficient; evidence unreliable and conclusions unwarranted. | Designation rests on totality of record; substantial evidence supports it. | Designation sustained; no arbitrary or capricious conduct found. |
| Constitutional standing and merits of First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment claims | Kadi has rights despite non-residency; actions violate due process, takings, speech/association. | Foreign national with limited U.S. connections has constrained rights; regime serves national security. | Constitutional claims fail; designation withstands scrutiny. |
| Takings under the Fifth Amendment and Tucker Act | Blocking assets constitutes taking and requires compensation. | Blocking orders are not takings; Tucker Act remedies not applicable here. | Takings claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; ruling that blocking is not a taking. |
| Vagueness and overbreadth of EO 13224 and IEEPA terms | Terms like 'otherwise associated with' are vague and overbroad. | Definitions are sufficiently precise; new regulatory definitions cure defects. | Vagueness challenges rejected; definitions upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holy Land Found. for Relief & Development v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (deference in national-security blocking decisions; record review limited to administrative record)
- Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (no constitutional right to funding terrorism; due process considerations under SDGT regime)
- Humanitarian Law Project v. Treasury, 578 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) (strict scrutiny framework applied to material support regime; props narrowly tailored)
- National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Dep't of State, 251 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (substantial connections/standing considerations for FTO designations)
- People's Mujahedin of Iran v. Dep't of State, 182 F.3d 17 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (foreign entity with no U.S. property or presence lacks constitutional rights unless alter egos)
- 32 County Sovereignty v. Dep't of State, 292 F.3d 797 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (presence of property as a factor in constitutional rights analysis)