holding that whether the PMOI threatens the security of the United States or its nationals, one of the findings the Secretary of State is required to make in order to designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization under 8 U.S.C. § 1189(a)(1)(C), is nonjusticiable because “it is beyond the judicial function for a court to review foreign policy decisions of the Executive Branch.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that whether the PMOI threatens the security of the United States or its nationals, one of the findings the Secretary of State is required to make in order to designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization under 8 U.S.C. § 1189(a)(1)(C), is nonjusticiable because “it is beyond the judicial function for a court to review foreign policy decisions of the Executive Branch.”
- rejecting that OFAC’s reliance on classified evidence necessarily violates due process
- in camera, ex parte submissions of classified information in a designation proceeding under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 did not violate due process, which requires “only that process which is due under the circumstances of the case,” specifically access to the unclassified portions of the administrative record
- rejecting the argument that the use of classified information disclosed only to the court ex parte and in camera violates due process
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment denying the petitions for review. I find it unnecessary, however, to reach the constitutional due process challenge to the Secretary’s use of classified evidence to designate petitioner.
The public, unclassified administrative record, including petitioner’s own submissions to the Secretary, contains more than enough evidence to support the determination that petitioner engages in terrorist activity. The Government followed the procedures that we required in National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State, 251 F.3d 192 (D.C.Cir.2001). Petitioner offered a wealth of submissions to the Secretary, which the public record now includes. Not only is there enough evidence in the public record to support the Secretary’s determination that petitioner engaged in the acts alleged, there appears to be no dispute over the facts supporting that determination. And, for the reasons stated in the majority opinion, I agree that petitioner’s activities clearly fall within the statutory definition of “terrorist activity” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(3)(B)(iii) (2000 & Supp.2003). Therefore, I find it unnecessary to reach petitioner’s constitutional due process challenge to the Secretary’s use of secret, classified material to bolster its determination.
In sum, because there is substantial, unrefuted evidence in the public, unclassified record for the designation of petitioner as a foreign terrorist organization, I agree that the petition for review should be denied.