Charity Labeled a Terror Group Loses Ruling

A federal judge Thursday dismissed a challenge by the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the nation’s largest Muslim charity, to its designation as a terrorist group and the seizing of its assets by the U.S. government.

In a 58-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler gave a sweeping victory to the U.S. Justice Department, which had defended the government’s shutdown last year of the foundation which was headquartered in Richardson, Texas.

On Dec. 4, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the foundation as a terrorist group and froze all of its assets, for allegedly funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, a Palestinian organization blamed for repeated attacks in Israel.

Holy Land Foundation sued, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the U.S. government from continuing to block or interfere with its access to and disposition of its assets.

In turning down the injunction, Kessler said, “both the government and the public have a strong interest in curbing the escalating violence in the Middle East and its effects on the security of the United States and the world as a whole.”

She said orders blocking assets “are an important component of U.S. foreign policy, and the president’s choice of this tool to combat terrorism is entitled to particular deference.”

Kessler rejected the foundation’s arguments that the blocking order violates the administrative procedure law, a law protecting religious freedom, and various constitutional provisions, including its due process and free-speech rights.

“Designation of Holy Land Foundation as a terrorist and seizure of its assets do not constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action,” she said.

The only claim Kessler did not dismiss involved the foundation’s argument that the government’s entry onto its corporate premises and removal of its property without a warrant violated its 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Although this part of the lawsuit can go forward, Kessler said the government advanced strong arguments in support of its position defending the search and seizure.