PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff non-profit organization was designated by defendant Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as a specially designated global terrorist pursuant to Exec. Order No. 13,224. The non-profit filed an action asserting that the OFAC had violated its due process and Fourth Amendment rights. It appealed the United States District Court for the District of Oregon's grant of summary judgment to OFAC.

OVERVIEW: Substantial evidence supported that the non-profit was owned or controlled by an individual who had been designated a global terrorist, and that the non-profit provided support to al Qaida and other designated persons as a branch office of an organization that shared its name in Saudi Arabia. That evidence included the fact that the non-profit chose its name to parallel the Saudi Arabian organization's name and the names of other branches. Additionally, three out of four founding members of the non-profit were senior officials of the Saudi Arabian organization. Moreover, several documents in the record demonstrated that, at times at least, the non-profit described itself to others as a branch office of the larger organization. Given the extreme importance of maintaining national security, OFAC was entitled to use classified information in making its designation determination. OFAC's failure to pursue potential mitigation measures violated the non-profit's due process rights because the small burden on the agency of providing mitigation measures did not outweigh the potential value to the non-profit. However, that error was harmless, as it would not have changed the designation.

OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed in part as to the redesignation of the non-profit organization as a specially designated global terrorist and the rejection of the non-profit's Fifth Amendment due process claim. It was reversed in part as to the non-profit's Fourth Amendment claim and another organization's First Amendment claim. The case was remanded to determine what relief, if any, may have been available.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20151851)

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/on-billboards-a-bilingual-call-to-nonbelievers/?ref=nyregion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20151875)

DAS RACIS!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153279)

Maybe now they can apply this to the FALN affiliated "charities", who are the most egregious at this after the radical islamic ones

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153394)

They just remanded a case saying there are no appellate issues.

3(4) board members are fucking terrorists. How is this even being entertained?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153422)

Fucking lawyers.

Oh, NBD, yeah sure, terrorists should be allowed to promote their agendas with nonprofit status.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153414)

Law I like

"You should follow the law, you can't play by your own rules"

Law I don't

"We can't follow the law because of penumbras, social justice errrr, or something else."

You're either naive or dishonest. If you don't follow that law is policy and vice versa, you're an idiot. And this is why I'm against legislating from the bench. Both sides do it, let's not fucking kid ourselves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153475)

We hold that all three Mathews factors support the

conclusion that OFAC violated AHIF-Oregon’s due process

rights. First, OFAC’s blocking notice deprived AHIF-Oregon

of its ability to use any funds whatsoever, for any purpose.

Second, because AHIF-Oregon could only guess (partly

incorrectly) as to the reasons for the investigation, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, although national security might justify keeping AHIF-Oregon in the dark, OFAC makes no effort to demonstrate that its failure to provide AHIF-Oregon with reasons for seizure

its investigation promoted national security. OFAC presents

three different arguments to justify its failure to provide a

statement of rea

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153514)

Also you're retarded if you can't follow the money trail, they were funding insurgents in Chechnya and likely Ingushetia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153529)

supported by probable cause violated its Fourth Amendment

right to be free of unreasonable seizures

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153587)

THEYRE A DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATION YOU FUCKING MORON

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153700)

in preventing terrorism and the funding of terrorism is

extremely high. But the sensitive subject matter is no excuse

for the dispensing altogether with domestic persons’ constitutional rights. Rather, the dispositive question here is whether it is impracticable for OFAC to achieve its undeniably important aims without securing a warrant.

OFAC asserts that the timing of

its blocking orders is coordinated with other governments,

which makes it impractical to obtain a warrant.

[24] We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, we reiterate

that the number of designated persons located within the

United States appears to be very small. The warrant requirement

therefore will be relevant in only a few cases.

We acknowledge that the issue of “asset flight” is a legitimate concern; that coordination may be required with different agencies of this government or even with foreign

governments; and that additional assets may be discovered in

the future. To the extent that those concerns are present in any given situation, OFAC can protect its interest in stopping the funding of terrorism by seizing the assets initially pursuant to an emergency exception to the warrant requirement

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153789)

K cool. I'm sure your strategy will work out awesome.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153829)

I also would've interrogated them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153441)

that it made the donation but strenuously argues that it was

intended to be used, and in fact was used, for humanitarian

relief in Chechnya. The donation originated from an Egyptian

national who apparently wished to funnel the money through

AHIF-Oregon. AHIF-Oregon received the funds and then transferred them to AHIF-Saudi Arabia

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153451)

NBD, nonprofit status for terrists. Even some liberals draw the line at gov't giving tax breaks to terrists spreading their hateful ideology

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153574)

yAnyways, Roberts opinion was terribly justified on the merits. Breyer's dissent is brilliantly crafted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153734)

the use of heightened scrutiny is that it ensures a close connection between means and ends to avoid unnecessary restrictions on liberty. That inquiry means little, however, if courts defer to factual claims without examining their foundations.68 In HLP, the majority implicitly chastised the dissent for “[a]t bottom . . . simply disagree[ing] with

the considered judgment of Congress and the Executive.”69 In the general case, this critique would be right: both institutional competence and democratic accountability support deference to the political branches in foreign affairs and national security, especially with respect

to predictive judgments assessing future threats.70 But to defer in this way when applying heightened scrutiny, according to which the government must rigorously justify its choices (and hence account for the claims underlying those choices), is to reverse the normal burden.71 Furthermore, uncritical deference to a highly generalized judgment, as in HLP, leaves serious questions regarding the degree to which that judgment actually applied to the specific matter at issue.

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol_12401holder_v_humanitarian_law_project.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153884)

(yells ALLAHU AKBHAR, has bomb strapped to chest)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153881)

harv l rev disagrees with your sarcasm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153893)

I prefer YALE LAW REVIEW'S moar preftigious opinion on the matter.

You're running pretty good flame lately bro. Your pro-material support for terrists is just too bizarre though. Even most liberals have more integrity than that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153937)

this one is a great own by one of my fav con law gurus, Owen fiss.

This Essay focuses on a related threat to our constitutional order—the curtailment of freedom of speech in the name of fighting terrorism. Specifically, my subject is the

Supreme Court’s decision last June in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,6 which upheld the authority of Congress to criminalize political advocacy on behalf of foreign

terrorist organizations. Like warrantless wiretapping, the risk of a criminal prosecution for political advocacy—for example, an utterance by an American citizen in an

American forum that a foreign terrorist organization has a just cause—poses a threat to our democracy, but the danger is greater. The risk of warrantless wiretapping inhibits

speech; the risk of a criminal prosecution stops it altogether.

A focus on the Humanitarian Law Project decision will also enable us to assign responsibility more accurately for the debasement of the Constitution. We will be able to see more clearly than we could through an analysis of the policies governing the treatment of prisoners, or even the NSA wiretapping program, that the threat to our liberty derives not just from the unilateral excesses of President Bush, but also from policies that have been defended and continued by President Obama and embraced by the other branches of government, including the Supreme Court.7 All three branches

share in the responsibility for the abuses of the constitution that we confront in this age of terror

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153963)

You know this "Rights fer TERRISTS are sacred ponies" shit is all flame right?

Read Schmitt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20153990)

The important thing is that terrorists really do want to kill us all.

Sure, the government is using this as a power grab, who wouldn't?

That doesn't change the fact terrorists are still trying to kill us.

It's kind of the point of terrorism, to make the gov't apparatus clamp down, to make people hate it - the installation of fear.

We're in a war, if you give the enemy nightvision goggles, you support the enemy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20154044)

I refer you to the film "Mean Girls", a timely meditation on the US and Saudi Arabia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1892561&forum_id=2#20154083)