{"id":7959,"date":"2020-09-03T14:14:28","date_gmt":"2020-09-03T18:14:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/?page_id=7959"},"modified":"2024-03-14T13:46:43","modified_gmt":"2024-03-14T17:46:43","slug":"litigation-overview","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/litigation-overview\/","title":{"rendered":"Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"
In the post-9\/11 era, litigation involving counterterrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT ACT and nonprofit rights has had a significant impact on how the law is applied and the ability of U.S. charities doing humanitarian, development, peacebuilding, human rights and similar work to operate effectively. This section provides overview and analysis of the major counterterrorism cases affecting nonprofits. Below you will find all of these cases organized under one of six main themes: As you navigate to each case, you will find a page giving a case overview and any important developments or analysis related to it, along with a list of additional resources.<\/p>\n<\/div>
18 U.S.C. \u00a72339 prohibits the provision of broadly defined \u201cmaterial support\u201d to designated terrorists and groups.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that training, expert advice or assistance for designated groups is not protected speech and falls within the prohibition on material support of terrorism, even when it is for the purpose of building peace and support for nonviolence.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n Charity\u2019s leaders were convicted of providing material support to terrorists and given lengthy prison sentences, even though the zakat committees that received aid were not on a government list. This case also raised evidentiary and due process concerns.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> To designate a group and freeze its assets, the government only needs a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that it is providing support to terrorists. The groups\u2019s assets can be frozen pending an investigation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> Following a federal court ruling that freezing the charity\u2019s assets pending investigation of alleged terrorist support was an unlawful seizure, the government reached a settlement in which they agreed to delist the charity and unfreeze their assets so they could be distributed.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n A federal appeals court held that the Fifth Amendment\u2019s guarantee of due process requires Treasury to give adequate notice of the reasons for putting a charity on the terrorist list, as well as a meaningful opportunity to respond. The court also ruled that freezing the group\u2019s assets amounts to a Fourth Amendment seizure and that the term \u201cmaterial support\u201d of terrorism is unconstitutionally vague.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n In contrast to standards applied to charities, this corporation was allowed to enter into a plea deal and pay a fine after admitting it paid terrorists for protection in Columbia even though they knew the payments were illegal.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Kadi\u2019s court challenges to his placement on terrorist listings in the EU and the U.S. produced different results, with U.S. courts rejecting his constitutional claims.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> Nonprofits assert that domestic surveillance violates their First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and fall outside authority granted by the PATRIOT Act.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> A federal judge ruled the phone conversations of the charity with two of its American lawyers were illegally wiretapped.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n A lawsuit filed by 24 nonprofits (including the Charity & Security Network) challenges the NSA\u2019s bulk collection of communication data.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> U.S. listing of terrorists is part of a broader sanctions regime that bans payments, exports and services to certain countries, regions, economic sectors, persons and entities.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> A charity and its leader were charged with sending funds to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions and falsifying documents in a coverup.\u00a0Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n In August 2022, Iranian non-government organizations (NGOs)\u00a0Iran Thalassemia Society<\/a>\u00a0and EB Home, supported by other plaintiffs\u00a0filed suit<\/a> in the Federal District Court in Oregon against the U.S. Treasury Department\u2019s\u00a0 Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), requesting that the District Court enjoin the U.S. government from imposing economic sanctions that have caused medical aid to cease to Iran. Read more<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> These lawsuits brought by individuals or groups steer valuable resources away from lifesaving work in an attempt to push forth a political agenda.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> The court granted USPCR’s Motion to Dismiss a case brought by JNF and 12 Americans living in Israel, who alleged that USCPR was liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act for damages due to injuries from attacks in Israel because it collects funds from U.S. donors for the Boycott National Committee in Palestine, whose membership includes a coalition that includes Hamas.\u00a0Read more<\/a>.<\/p>\n The parties “agreed to disagree” in a settlement that resulted in dismissal of this case, with no damages paid or admission of wrongdoing. The False Claims Act lawsuit alleged NIF fraudulently claimed tax exempt status in New York State, arguing that its advocacy work in Israel constituted partisan electioneering under IRS rules.\u00a0Read more<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n AUB agreed to pay $700,000 after TZAC alleged that its journalist training program included people on OFAC\u2019s SDN list.\u00a0Read more<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n NPA settled a federal lawsuit that alleged two of its projects \u2013 democracy training for youth in Gaza and mine clearing in Iran \u2013 violated the terms of its USAID grant agreement in which it stipulated that it did not provide material support to terrorists. The grant was to provide emergency aid in South Sudan.\u00a0Read more<\/a>.<\/p>\n TZAC was unsuccessful in its False Claims Act lawsuit alleging that the Carter Center provided material support to terrorists when it held a meeting in which refreshments were served, contrary to the terms of its grant agreement with USAID. The case was dismissed before trial at the request of DOJ.\u00a0Read more<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n TZAC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal after DOJ moved to dismiss the lawsuit in which TZAC alleged that an Oxfam project supports ministries tied to Hamas (which is on the U.S. terrorist list) and the Palestinian Authority (which is not), contrary to the terms of its grant agreement with USAID.\u00a0Read more<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) (18 U.S.C. \u00a72333), part of the \u201cmaterial support\u201d statutes, allows U.S. persons to sue for any injury caused by an act of international terrorism committed, planned or authorized by an organization that was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and National Act.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
Due Process & Designation<\/h2><\/div>
KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Geithner<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
USA v. Chiquita Banana<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
Yassin A. Kadi v. Paulson<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
Surveillance<\/h2><\/div>
Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush; Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. National Security Agency<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
Sanctions<\/h2><\/div>
USA v. Mehrdad Yasrebi and Child Foundation<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
Iran Thalassemia Society et al v. OFAC<\/a><\/h3>\n
Lawfare<\/h2><\/div>
USA ex rel TZAC, Inc. v. Christian Aid<\/a><\/h3>\n
Jewish National Fund, et al. v. Education for a Just Peace in the Middle East (US Campaign for Palestinian Rights)<\/a><\/h3>\n
State of New York ex rel. TZAC, Inc. v New Israel Fund<\/a><\/h3>\n
USA ex rel. TZAC, Inc. v. American University in Beirut<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
USA ex rel. TZAC, Inc. v. Norwegian People\u2019s Aid<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
USA ex rel. TZAC, Inc. v. The Carter Center, Inc.<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
USA ex rel. TZAC, Inc. v. Oxfam GB<\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n
Civil Liability \/ Anti-Terrorism Act<\/h2><\/div>