Kamaluddin Nabizada v. Marco Rubio et al. (D.D.C. Civil Action No. 23-02906 (AHA))

Procedural record

1. 26 August 2026United States

   26 August 2026United States

   Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Civil Action No. 23-02906 (AHA) dated 26 August 2026

   United States District Court for the District of Columbia

   Decision summary

   The court dismissed without prejudice Nabizada’s claim alleging unlawful delay in deciding his OFAC reconsideration petition, granted the government’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining APA claims, and denied Nabizada’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court held that OFAC’s initial designation and reconsideration denial were supported by reasoned decisionmaking and that the disclosed unclassified information satisfied due process.

   Supporting details

   Kamaluddin Nabizada

   Marco Rubio

   United States District Court for the District of Columbia

   Judge

   Amir H. Ali

   Authorities cited

   26

   • International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1702(a)(1)(B), 1702(c))
     statute
   • Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A))
     statute
   • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3))
     rule
   • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d))
     rule
   • Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism (Exec. Order No. 13224, 66 Fed. Reg. 49079 (Sep. 23, 2001))
     executive order
   • Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism (Exec. Order No. 13886, 84 Fed. Reg. 48041 (Sep. 9, 2019))
     executive order
   • Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. §§ 594.201(a), 594.310, 594.802; 68 Fed. Reg. 34196 (June 6, 2003))
     regulation
   • Office of Foreign Assets Control reconsideration procedure (31 C.F.R. § 501.807)
     regulation
   • Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (607 U.S. 229, 237 (2026))
     case
   • Zevallos v. Obama (10 F. Supp. 3d 111, 117, 123 (D.D.C. 2014), aff’d, 793 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2015))
     case
   • Kadi v. Geithner (42 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9, 16–17 (D.D.C. 2012))
     case
   • Olenga v. Gacki (507 F. Supp. 3d 260, 272–73, 276 (D.D.C. 2020))
     case
   • Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. v. FDA (587 F. Supp. 2d 1, 18 (D.D.C. 2008))
     case
   • Motor Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (463 U.S. 29, 43, 52 (1983))
     case
   • AT&T Corp. v. FCC (349 F.3d 692, 698 (D.C. Cir. 2003); 220 F.3d 607, 616 (D.C. Cir. 2000))
     case
   • Islamic American Relief Agency v. Gonzales (477 F.3d 728, 732, 734 (D.C. Cir. 2007))
     case
   • Karadzic v. Gacki (No. 23-cv-1226, 2024 WL 4253132, at *4 (D.D.C. Sep. 20, 2024))
     case
   • Dickson v. Secretary of Defense (68 F.3d 1396, 1404 (D.C. Cir. 1995))
     case
   • Florida Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC (604 F.3d 636, 645 (D.C. Cir. 2010))
     case
   • Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Motor Freight System, Inc. (419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974))
     case
   • Taylor v. Mills (892 F. Supp. 2d 124, 137–38 (D.D.C. 2012))
     case
   • National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State (251 F.3d 192, 196, 208–09 (D.C. Cir. 2001))
     case
   • People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Department of State (327 F.3d 1238, 1241–42 (D.C. Cir. 2003))
     case
   • Fares v. Smith (901 F.3d 315, 323–24 (D.C. Cir. 2018))
     case
   • Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v. Ashcroft (333 F.3d 156, 163–64 (D.C. Cir. 2003))
     case
   • Mathews v. Eldridge (424 U.S. 319, 333, 335 (1976))
     case