## Facts

- Federal law authorizes the Secretary of State to designate a foreign entity as a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO) upon specified findings, triggering asset-blocking, immigration consequences, and material-support criminal liability.
- The Secretary designated the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) as an FTO and later redesignated it in 1999 and again in 2001.
- After earlier litigation, the agency was required to provide notice of the unclassified material supporting the designation and an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence.
- On remand, the Secretary provided PMOI access to the unclassified record and an opportunity to respond; the Secretary also relied on classified information that was not disclosed to PMOI.
- The statute permits the government to submit classified material to the reviewing court for ex parte, in camera consideration.
- PMOI petitioned for review of the 1999 and 2001 designations, arguing constitutional and statutory defects and challenging the evidentiary basis for the designations.

## Issues

1. Whether the procedures used after remand—providing notice and rebuttal only as to unclassified information while relying on undisclosed classified information—satisfied applicable due process.
2. Whether the statutory review scheme, including use of undisclosed classified information and limited judicial review, is unconstitutional.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the Secretary’s findings that PMOI engaged in terrorist activity (or retained capability and intent) and that such activity threatened U.S. nationals or U.S. national security.

## Decision

- The court denied the petitions for review and left the 1999 and 2001 FTO designations in place.
- The court held the Secretary satisfied the required procedures by disclosing the unclassified basis for the designation and allowing PMOI to submit rebuttal material.
- The court held due process did not require disclosure of classified information to PMOI in this national-security setting, given Congress’s authorization and the court’s ex parte, in camera review.
- The court upheld the statutory framework as applied and concluded the designations were supported by substantial evidence under the deferential standard of review.
- A concurring judge agreed with the result under existing law but noted fairness concerns when an organization cannot see or rebut classified evidence used against it.

## Legal Principles

- For an FTO designation affecting an entity with a U.S. presence or property interests, due process requires, at minimum, notice of the unclassified material relied upon and a meaningful opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence.
- In the foreign-affairs and national-security context, due process does not necessarily require disclosure of classified information to the affected organization when Congress has authorized reliance on such information and the court can review it ex parte, in camera.
- Judicial review of FTO designations is limited and deferential; the court assesses whether the Secretary acted according to law and whether substantial evidence supports the required statutory findings, without second-guessing predictive national-security judgments.
- The political branches receive substantial deference in terrorism designations, including determinations about threats to national security.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld PMOI’s 1999 and 2001 FTO designations, ruling that providing PMOI notice and an opportunity to rebut the unclassified evidence satisfied the limited due process owed in this context and that reliance on undisclosed classified information was permissible given national-security interests and ex parte, in camera judicial review, with the designations supported by substantial evidence.


People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 327 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2003)