Government Settles Charity’s Lawsuit Over Unconstitutional Terrorism Probe
Agreement Removes KindHearts from List of Groups with Assets Frozen, Allows Funds to Go to Humanitarian Causes
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
TOLEDO, Ohio – The U.S. Treasury Department has settled a lawsuit brought by KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, an Ohio-based charity that was under investigation for alleged ties to terrorism.
After a string of legal victories for the group, including court findings that the government’s actions violated its due process and Fourth Amendment rights, the government has agreed to remove it from a blacklist and let it distribute funds raised for humanitarian causes consistent with the intent of donors. Details of the agreement were announced today.
This is the first time the government has agreed to de-list a frozen organization as a result of a lawsuit, and to then allow it to distribute its assets.
“This settlement is a tremendous victory for KindHearts and the rule of law,” said Alexander Abdo, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “No American charity should have to endure the unconstitutional treatment that KindHearts was subjected to. We hope the government now realizes that, as the court held, the executive branch cannot simply ignore the Constitution in the name of national security.”
The Treasury Department froze KindHearts’ assets and effectively shut down the charity in February 2006, based on secret evidence and without any finding of wrongdoing, pending an investigation into whether to label the charity a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.” The government instituted the freeze without a warrant or probable cause, and without providing the charity a chance to defend itself. KindHearts sued in 2008 in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Ohio and several civil rights attorneys.
“The Treasury Department settled only after a federal court ruled that the designation process denied KindHearts notice and a fair opportunity to defend itself, the bedrock requirements of fair process,” said Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, co-counsel for KindHearts. “If the Treasury Department wants to use this process in the future, it will need to amend its procedures to bring them into conformity with the Constitution.”
In a landmark 2009 ruling, a federal court sided with KindHearts, holding that the Treasury Department violated the Constitution by freezing KindHearts’ assets without a warrant based on probable cause. The court barred the Treasury Department from designating KindHearts a terrorist group unless it provided KindHearts real notice of the charges against it and a chance to defend itself, including meaningful access to or summaries of the classified information the government was relying on.
The ruling also ordered the government to demonstrate that it had probable cause to freeze KindHearts’ assets in 2006. The government opened settlement discussions on the eve of being forced to make its case in court.
After paying creditors, KindHearts will have close to $1 million to donate to the U.N. World Food Programme, UNICEF and Mercy Corps to support humanitarian work in Pakistan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
“From 2002 through 2006, KindHearts distributed food, clothing and school supplies to those in need around the world. Although we welcome our government’s decision to abandon its unconstitutional effort to label KindHearts a terrorist organization, the sacrifices made by KindHearts’ employees and their families, donors and beneficiaries must not be forgotten,” said Jihad M. Smaili, KindHearts board member and attorney. “Although we remain saddened by our government’s conduct in shutting down KindHearts, we are pleased that those most in need will finally receive some help based on our donors’ wishes. But most importantly, our government is reminded today that its power ought to follow justice, not precede it.”
Under the settlement, the government will also pay KindHearts’ attorneys’ fees, which under federal law are due only when the government’s position is not “substantially justified.” The settlement notes that KindHearts, which has been shut down for six years, “has independently determined to close down because further charitable work would be best pursued under other auspices.” The agreement specifies that KindHearts’ board members are free to “form[] a new organization to engage in charitable activity in the Middle East or elsewhere.” Some of KindHearts’ board members are considering whether to launch a new charity to continue their charitable activities.
In addition to Abdo and Cole, attorneys on the case are Ben Wizner and Hina Shamsi of the ACLU, Lynne Bernabei and Alan Kabat of Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, and Fritz Byers.
The settlement agreement is available at:
More information on the case is available at:
National Security
Smart Justice
KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Geithner et al.
National Security
Smart Justice
KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Geithner et al.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.