AL Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury

Decision Date27 February 2012
Docket NumberNo. 10–35032.,10–35032.
PartiesAL HARAMAIN ISLAMIC FOUNDATION, INC., aka Al–Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc.; and Multicultural Association of Southern Oregon, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY; Timothy Geithner; Office of Foreign Assets Control; Adam J. Szubin; United States Department of Justice; and Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

David D. Cole, Georgetown University Law Center, Amanda Shanor, Georgetown University, Lynne Bernabei and Alan Kabat, Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, Washington, D.C., Thomas H. Nelson, Thomas H. Nelson & Associates, Welches, OR, and J. Ashlee Albies, Creighton & Rose, P.C., Portland, OR, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Douglas N. Letter and Michael P. Abate, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Garr M. King, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:07–cv–01155–KI.

Before: D.W. NELSON, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, and SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed September 23, 2011 , is amended as follows:

On slip opinion page 18090 , lines 8–12, delete the two sentences beginning: “In any event....”

On slip opinion page 18093 , line 5, add the following footnote after “unreasonable seizures”:

In its petition for rehearing, OFAC raises interesting arguments about issues that we need not, and do not, decide. We address only the facts of this case: OFAC's seizure of assets as a result of its designation order of a United States entity located within the United States. We do not address the requirements under the Fourth Amendment for other situations including, for example, designations of foreign entities or designations by executive order. We also make clear that our holding concerns OFAC's original designation order only; we do not address whether a warrant is required for subsequent orders. Finally, we note that a designation order need not specify all details of every asset to meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. Cf. United States v. Petti, 973 F.2d 1441, 1444–45 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that a ‘roving’ wiretap surveillance” warrant meets the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement).

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Thomas and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Nelson has so recommended.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it.

The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc shall be entertained.

OPINION

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Oregon (AHIF–Oregon), is a non-profit organization, incorporated in Oregon, whose stated purpose is to promote greater understanding of Islam. The United States government suspected AHIF–Oregon of supporting terrorism. In 2004, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a part of the United States Department of the Treasury, froze AHIF–Oregon's assets and designated AHIF–Oregon as a “specially designated global terrorist” pursuant to Executive Order (“EO”) No. 13,224. President George W. Bush had issued EO 13,224 pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1707, in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001.

AHIF–Oregon eventually filed this action, asserting that OFAC has violated a variety of its statutory and constitutional rights. Plaintiff Multicultural Association of Southern Oregon, which the government has not accused of supporting terrorism, challenges certain laws that bar it from providing services to designated entities such as AHIF–Oregon. With the exception of one claim not at issue on appeal, the district court granted summary judgment to OFAC.

On appeal, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. We affirm the district court's ruling that substantial evidence supports OFAC's redesignation of AHIF–Oregon as a specially designated global terrorist, and we affirm the district court's rejection of AHIF–Oregon's due process claims. We reverse the district court's rejection of AHIF–Oregon's Fourth Amendment claim and remand for the district court to determine what judicial relief, if any, is available. Finally, we reversethe district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

AHIF–Oregon incorporated as a non-profit public benefit corporation under Oregon law in 1999. AHIF–Oregon describes itself as “an Oregon non-profit charitable organization that seeks to promote greater understanding of the Islamic religion through operating prayer houses, distributing religious publications, and engaging in other charitable activities.” It maintains headquarters in Ashland, Oregon, where it formerly owned and operated a prayer house. Its primary activities appear to have taken place in Oregon, though it also was a partial owner of a prayer house in Springfield, Missouri, and conducted some activities there and abroad.

AHIF–Oregon is not the only organization with the name “Al Haramain Islamic Foundation.” At the time of its incorporation, organizations with that name existed in dozens of other countries. One of the largest, if not the largest, was AHIF–Saudi Arabia, which had an annual budget of between $30 million and $80 million. Like AHIF–Oregon, AHIF–Saudi Arabia described itself as a charitable organization. AHIF–Saudi Arabia dissolved in June 2004.

The two organizations, AHIF–Oregon and AHIF–Saudi Arabia, shared some leaders in common. In particular, Saudi nationals Aqeel Al–Aqil and Soliman Al–Buthe 1 both held leadership roles in the two organizations. Al–Aqil founded AHIF–Saudi Arabia and reportedly led that organization during much of its existence. He also founded AHIF–Oregon, along with Al–Buthe and two other persons, and served as president of that organization until he resigned in March 2003. Al–Buthe was a senior official of AHIF–Saudi Arabia, where he was primarily responsible for its internet and charitable works in the United States. Al–Buthe resigned from AHIF–Saudi Arabia in September 2002. Like Al–Aqil, Al–Buthe was a founding member of the board of directors of AHIF–Oregon. Unlike Al–Aqil, Al–Buthe has not resigned from AHIF–Oregon; Al–Buthe maintains a position on the board to this day.

Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, President Bush exercised his authority under the IEEPA by issuing EO 13,224. 66 Fed.Reg. 49,079 (Sept. 23, 2001). Under the IEEPA, the President may, in specified ways, “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.” 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a). Relevant here, the President may

(B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States[.]

Id. § 1702(a)(1)(B). A person who violates the IEEPA is subject to civil penalties and, for willful violations, criminal penalties, including a fine up to $1 million and imprisonment for up to 20 years. Id. § 1705. 2

In the Executive Order, the President declared that the September 11, 2001, acts ... constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” EO 13,224 pmbl. The Order “blocked” “all property and interests in property” of 27 persons designated by the Order, and it delegated to the specified agency head the authority to designate other persons with substantial connections to terrorist activities and organizations. Id. § 1. Specifically, Section 1 of the Order states that

all property and interests in property of the following persons that are in the United States or that hereafter come within the United States, or that hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons are blocked:

(a) foreign persons listed in the Annex to this order;

(b) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States;

(c) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of those persons listed in the Annex to this order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of this order;

(d) except as provided in section 5 of this order and after such consultation, if any, with foreign authorities as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, deems appropriate in the exercise of [her] discretion, persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General;

(i) to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • United States v. Fowlkes
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 25 Agosto 2014
    ...and the officers have no control over which visual search will reveal protruding contraband. Cf. Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 686 F.3d 965, 992–93 (9th Cir.2012) (finding special needs exception did not apply in part because seizure at issue was not limited to......
  • In re Nat'l Sec. Letter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 14 Marzo 2013
    ...United States Dep't of the Treasury, 660 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.2011), reprinted as amended at Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 686 F.3d 965, 981–82 (9th Cir.2012). The Court clarified that the holding in American–Arab Anti–Discrimination Committee was ba......
  • Twitter, Inc. v. Garland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 6 Marzo 2023
    ...fairness to the private party," it "certainly does not require that the government take actions that would endanger national security." Id. at 980. "[N]or does require the government to undertake every possible effort to mitigate the risk of erroneous deprivation and the potential harm to t......
  • Kashem v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 21 Octubre 2019
    ...designed to protect against erroneous deprivation of the private party’s interests." Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury (Al Haramain II ), 686 F.3d 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2012). Weighing the Mathews factors, we conclude the procedures provided to the plaintiffs were cons......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • THE ORIGINS AND LEGACY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REASONABLENESS-BALANCING MODEL.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 1, September 2020
    • 22 Septiembre 2020
    ...under the balancing test and the search was therefore reasonable). (422.) Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, 686 F.3d 965, 994-95 (9th Cir. (423.) See id. at 970. (424.) See id. at 990-93. (425.) Id. at 993. (426.) Id. at 994. (427.) Id. (428.) Id. (429.) See su......
  • TikTok v. Trump and the Uncertain Future of National Security-Based Restrictions on Data Trade
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy No. 13-1, December 2022
    • 1 Diciembre 2022
    ...Reg. 31,423 (June 9, 2021). 150. 50 U.S.C. § 1702(c). 151. See Chachko, supra note 118, at 1100 (citing Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc., 686 F.3d 965, 976 (“The judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act . . . govern challenges to OFAC’s designation decisions.”) (citing......
  • Secret Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 65-5, 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...880 F.2d 506, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1989).133. Id. at 508-09.134. Id. at 520.135. Id. at 523.136. Id. at 516.137. Id. 138. Id. at 523-24.139. 686 F.3d 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2012).140. Id. at 982.141. Id.142. Id.143. Id. at 983. 144. See, e.g., Matthew R. Hall, Procedural Due Process Meets National Se......
  • UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: WHY WE NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT STIFLES THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM FOREIGNERS ONLINE.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 170 No. 5, May 2022
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...to withstand First Amendment challenges). (166) 735 F.3d 32, 41-44, 46 (1st Cir. 2013). (167) 968 F.3d 237, 238, 240 (3d Cir. 2020). (168) 686 F.3d 965, 971, 974-75, 979-81 (9th Cir. (169) Holder v. Humanitarian L. Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010). (170) See id. at 54-55 (Breyer, J., disse......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT