## Facts

- Global Relief Foundation, Inc. (GRF), an Illinois-based Islamic charity, operated humanitarian relief programs abroad funded by donations.
- After September 11, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13,224 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), authorizing blocking of property of persons who assist or support terrorism.
- On December 14, 2001, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued an order blocking GRF’s assets and treated GRF as a suspected “specially designated global terrorist,” while federal agents executed a search warrant at GRF’s offices.
- The blocking order froze all GRF funds and property in the United States, effectively halting operations and preventing GRF from paying staff and counsel.
- The government supported the blocking action with unclassified allegations of ties to terrorist-linked persons or entities and with classified materials reviewed by the court in camera.
- GRF sued federal officials and agencies, asserting constitutional and statutory violations, and moved for a preliminary injunction to lift or modify the freeze pending litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether GRF showed a likelihood of success that blocking its assets without prior notice and hearing violated Fifth Amendment due process.
2. Whether GRF showed a likelihood of success that the asset freeze impermissibly burdened First Amendment speech and associational rights connected to charitable and religious giving.
3. Whether GRF showed a likelihood of success that OFAC exceeded its authority under IEEPA and Executive Order 13,224 by blocking assets based on suspected terrorism support.
4. Whether GRF satisfied the preliminary-injunction requirements, including irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest.

## Decision

- The court denied GRF’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found GRF failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on its due process, First Amendment, and statutory claims at the preliminary stage.
- The court accepted that the freeze caused serious operational and reputational injury, but held that the balance of harms and public interest strongly favored maintaining the freeze given national security risks.
- The court held that the government’s use of classified evidence, reviewed in camera, did not make the process constitutionally inadequate for purposes of preliminary relief.

## Legal Principles

- In an extraordinary national-security situation, the government may block property without pre-deprivation notice or hearing if meaningful post-deprivation procedures and review are available.
- IEEPA and Executive Order 13,224 confer broad executive authority to block assets of persons or entities suspected of providing financial or material support to terrorism, and courts give substantial deference to executive factual and predictive judgments in this context.
- First Amendment protections apply to charitable solicitation and association, but a content-neutral restriction aimed at preventing diversion of funds to terrorism may be upheld where the government interest is compelling and the measure is closely fitted to that interest.
- For a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show at least some likelihood of success and irreparable harm; even with serious harm, relief may be denied when the balance of harms and public interest—particularly the risk of funding terrorism—favor the government.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin OFAC’s blocking order against GRF, concluding that immediate asset-freezing under IEEPA in the terrorism-financing context can be consistent with due process through post-deprivation review, that the asserted First Amendment burdens did not outweigh the government’s compelling counterterrorism interest, and that the balance of harms and public interest supported keeping the freeze in place pending adjudication.


Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O’Neill, 207 F. Supp. 2d 779 (N.D. Ill. 2002)