Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of Treasury

484 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (2007)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of Treasury

United States District Court for the Central District of California
484 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (2007)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

The Humanitarian Law Project and other plaintiffs (plaintiffs) challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13,224 (the EO) by suing the United States Department of Treasury (defendant). The court issued an order resolving the issues of the case and issuing an injunction against enforcement of the EO. The court decided that the “otherwise associated with” provision of the EO was unconstitutionally vague on its face and overbroad. The order found that the term itself did not have a clear meaning, was not defined by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which regulated and interpreted the EO, and its application was not subject to any identifiable criteria. The order also found that the provision was unconstitutionally overbroad because it imposed penalties for mere association with specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs). The court issued a judgment and informed the parties that the order should be made final, but the court allowed for any party that disagreed with the court’s views to submit a brief setting forth the objection before the case was closed. The government filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s determination that the “otherwise associated with” provision of the EO was unconstitutional. The government argued that in response to the order, OFAC issued a new regulation that defined “otherwise associated with” and cured the unconstitutionality of the EO provision. OFAC defined the term “otherwise associated with” to mean to own or control; to attempt, or conspire with another to act for or on behalf of; or to provide support or services. The government requested that the court assess the new regulation to find the EO constitutional and vacate the order.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Collins, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership