## Facts

- The President, acting under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), issued Executive Order 13,224 authorizing designation of “specially designated global terrorists” (SDGTs) and blocking transactions with them.
- Executive Order 13,224 permitted designation not only of SDGTs but also persons “otherwise associated with” SDGTs.
- U.S.-based individuals and organizations (including Humanitarian Law Project and related Tamil-oriented groups) challenged aspects of the Executive Order and implementing regulations, asserting constitutional violations affecting advocacy, training, and associational activity.
- In a prior merits decision (2006), the court held the “otherwise associated with” clause unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth and enjoined its enforcement.
- After the merits ruling, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a regulatory definition of “otherwise associated with,” defining it as: (1) to own or control; (2) to attempt, or conspire with another, to act for or on behalf of; or (3) to provide support or services.
- The government moved for reconsideration, arguing the new definition cured the constitutional defects and warranted vacatur or modification of the prior judgment and injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether OFAC’s post-judgment regulatory definition of “otherwise associated with” cured the vagueness and overbreadth defects previously found.
2. Whether reconsideration standards were met such that the court should vacate or modify its prior constitutional ruling and injunction.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion for reconsideration in part and denied it in part.
- The court considered OFAC’s new definition but concluded it did not eliminate the central constitutional problems identified earlier.
- The court declined to vacate its prior determination that the “otherwise associated with” component was unconstitutional in significant respects.
- The court left the injunction against enforcement of the “otherwise associated with” provision in place, subject to any limited technical adjustments consistent with the reconsideration ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Due process prohibits enforcement of designation and sanctions standards that lack clear, objective criteria and permit arbitrary application.
- A regulatory definition does not cure vagueness where key terms (including “provide support or services”) remain broad enough to cover substantial lawful conduct and do not meaningfully constrain enforcement discretion.
- A restriction is overbroad when it sweeps in protected First Amendment activity, including nonviolent political advocacy and association, beyond conduct that can be narrowly targeted as wrongful support.
- National security and foreign affairs deference does not displace constitutional limits; IEEPA-based measures must still provide adequate notice and avoid unnecessary burdens on protected speech and association.
- Reconsideration requires a substantial basis (such as intervening developments) and does not warrant disturbing a judgment where the asserted change does not resolve the dispositive constitutional defects.

## Conclusion

The court largely preserved its prior ruling and injunction, holding that OFAC’s new definition of “otherwise associated with” did not adequately constrain Executive Order 13,224’s reach and continued to present serious vagueness and First Amendment overbreadth problems.


Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 484 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2007)