Terrorism

• Author: International Law Group
• Pages: 40-41

Page 40

In 1985, a Sudanese immigrant founded the Islamic American Relief Agency (Plaintiff or IARAUSA), based in Columbia, Missouri. It takes part in global humanitarian activities and often cooperates with other organizations. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), designated Plaintiff 's Sudanese counterpart (IARA) as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT)." IARA allegedly supports persons or organizations that carry out terrorist activities. OFAC also applied the designation to Plaintiff and had its assets frozen.

Plaintiff eventually filed a complaint in U.S. district court. It alleged, inter alia, that the blocking of its assets violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) [5 U.S. Code, Subchapter II] and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [50 U.S. C. ßß 1701-1707]. The district court dismissed or entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims. Plaintiff appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirms, holding that the record below supported the terrorist designation as a branch of IARA.. This is the first challenge to a SDGT designation in this Court based on a branch relationship with an organization that supports terrorism.

Plaintiff asks the Court to review the designation the same way it would review an "alias" designation in a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" (FTO) case. There the standard is whether the designated entity "so dominates and controls" the alleged alias entity that the government can treat them as one and the same. The Government argued that the alias test does not apply because it did not base the blocking of the assets on that factor. Rather the Court should uphold the blocking if there is enough evidence that Plaintiff and IARA are the same organization even if one entity does not necessarily control the other. The Court agrees.

"We conclude that the Government has the better argument. To determine whether the evidence is sufficient, we must employ a test that reflects the theory on which the assets were blocked. The 'dominates and controls' test is appropriate for reviewing the existence of a principal-agent relationship because, where there is sufficient evidence to fi nd an agency relationship, substantial evidence of the principal's unlawful activity is sufficient to justify the designation or blocking of the agent. See [Nat'l Council of Resistance of Iran v. Dep't of State, 373 F.3d...