## Facts

- Amina Farah Ali and Hawo Mohamed Hassan were Somali-born, naturalized U.S. citizens living in Minnesota.
- The FBI investigated fundraising and money transfers connected to al-Shabaab after it was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in February 2008.
- The government alleged Ali raised money through door-to-door solicitations and teleconferences using religious and humanitarian themes, then transmitted funds to Somalia intended to support al-Shabaab.
- Trial evidence included recorded calls and financial records indicating the funds were directed to al-Shabaab fighters and activities rather than general humanitarian relief.
- Hassan participated in fundraising activity and was also charged with making false statements to the FBI about her knowledge of Ali’s support for al-Shabaab.
- The government provided notice of intent to use evidence obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
- The Attorney General filed a national-security declaration, and the district court conducted an in camera, ex parte review of FISA materials and denied defense motions for disclosure and suppression.
- A jury convicted Ali of conspiracy and twelve substantive counts of providing material support to an FTO (18 U.S.C. § 2339B), and convicted Hassan of conspiracy and two false-statement counts (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
- The district court sentenced Ali to 240 months’ imprisonment and Hassan to 120 months’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B have a due-process right to collaterally challenge the Secretary of State’s FTO designation of the relevant organization.
2. Whether the FTO-designation statute (8 U.S.C. § 1189) and § 2339B violate the non-delegation doctrine by permitting the Executive to define predicate facts that trigger criminal liability.
3. Whether § 2339B, as applied to defendants’ fundraising and related conduct, violates the First Amendment or is overbroad.
4. Whether FISA permits in camera, ex parte judicial review of surveillance materials without disclosure to the defense when the Attorney General asserts national-security harm.
5. Whether the evidence and jury instructions were sufficient and legally proper as to conspiracy, material support, and false statements.
6. Whether the sentences were substantively unreasonable or otherwise unlawful.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held defendants could not collaterally attack the FTO designation in a § 2339B prosecution.
- The court rejected the non-delegation challenge, concluding the statutory criteria supply an intelligible principle.
- The court rejected First Amendment and overbreadth challenges because § 2339B targets material support to an FTO, not independent advocacy.
- The court upheld the district court’s FISA process, including in camera, ex parte review and denial of disclosure and suppression.
- The court found the evidence and instructions sufficient and found no reversible error.
- The court upheld both sentences as reasonable in light of the offense conduct and the district court’s consideration of sentencing factors.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B generally may not mount a collateral challenge to the validity of an FTO designation; Congress created a limited, time-bound review path not available to third-party supporters in criminal cases.
- The FTO-designation scheme satisfies the non-delegation doctrine where Congress provides criteria requiring findings that the organization is foreign, engages in terrorist activity/terrorism, and threatens U.S. nationals or national security.
- Section 2339B regulates providing material support coordinated with, or directed to, a designated FTO; such support may be prohibited even when described as charitable or religiously motivated, and the statute does not criminalize independent advocacy.
- When the Attorney General submits the required national-security declaration, FISA authorizes district courts to conduct in camera, ex parte review of applications and related materials and to deny disclosure if necessary.
- Convictions under § 2339B and § 1001 may be sustained where the record permits a rational jury to find the required knowledge, intent, and falsity beyond a reasonable doubt, and instructions accurately state the elements.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld material-support and false-statement convictions arising from fundraising tied to al-Shabaab, holding that criminal defendants may not collaterally challenge an FTO designation, that the designation regime satisfies non-delegation limits, that § 2339B is consistent with the First Amendment as applied to coordinated support, and that FISA’s in camera, ex parte review procedure was properly used to protect national security while assessing legality of surveillance.


United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2015)