Islamic American Relief Agency v. Gonzales

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that blocking order does not violate the First Amendment
• explaining that the “district court has broad discretion in its handling of discovery”
• noting that courts are “extremely deferential” in this area
• rejecting argument that showing of intent was necessary and agreeing with other courts that intent to aid unlawful acts was inapplicable in the context of donations to terrorist groups “because the money could be used for unlawful activities regardless of donor intent”
• “This Court need not . . . accept inferences that are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint[.]”
• “[0]ur review — in an area at the intersection of national security, foreign policy, and administrative law — is extreme ly deferential.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).