Al Haramain v. Treasury: Successful Constitutional Challenge to Unlimited Treasury Power to Shut Down Charities

Printer-friendly version

On Nov. 7, 2008 Judge Garr King of the United States District Court in Oregon ruled that the Department of Treasury's action in shutting down the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. (AHIF-Oregon) in 2004 violated the organization's Fifth Amendment rights and potentially their Fourth Amendment rights as well. Judge King also ruled that the term "material support" of terrorism in Bush's Executive Order 13,224 (EO 13224), which grants the Secretary of Treasury power to designate Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), is unconstitutionally vague.

 
The Fifth Amendment's due process clause requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before depriving a person or organization of their property. The Court determined there was a violation of AHIF-Oregon's due process rights because Treasury failed to provide notice for eight months between the time it froze  AHIF's assets "pending investigation" in February 2004, and the designation of the organization as an SDGT in September 2004.
 
Additionally, the Court found a potential violation of AHIF-Oregon's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures. The judge ruled that the freezing order against AHIF-Oregon did constitute a seizure and, unless the government's actions were reasonable, the government violated the Fourth Amendment. However, it has not yet been decided whether the government's actions were reasonable because the Court has ordered additional arguments. (This issue was later decided in Kindhearts v. Treasury.) 

Finally, the Court ruled that the term "material support" is unconstitutionally vague, meaning that the term is not clear enough to where a person of common intelligence could be sure of its meaning.   The Treasury's definition of "material support" was confusing, lacked context for how the term should be understood, and did not have a set of standards in place as to how the term would be used.  Therefore the "material support" provision in EO 13224 was struck down by the District Court, but itis still in effect pending a final decision by the courts after appeal, or a new order by the current administration.