Nabizada v. Rubio (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 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 the case 23-02906 (AHA) dated 26 August 2026

   United States District Court for the District of Columbia

   Case no.

   23-02906 (AHA)

   Decision summary

   The court dismissed as moot Nabizada's claim that OFAC unreasonably delayed deciding his reconsideration petition, granted the government's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims, and denied Nabizada's cross-motion for summary judgment. It held that OFAC's designation and reconsideration denial were supported by reasoned decisionmaking and that the disclosed unclassified information and judicial review of the classified record satisfied due process.

   Participants

   Kamaluddin Nabizada

   Marco Rubio

   United States District Court for the District of Columbia

   Judge

   Amir H. Ali

   Authorities cited

   27

   • International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1702(a)(1)(B))
     statute
   • International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1702(c))
     statute
   • Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A))
     statute
   • Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism (Executive Order No. 13224)
     executive order
   • Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism (Executive Order No. 13886)
     executive order
   • Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. §§ 594.201(a), 594.310, 594.802)
     regulation
   • 31 C.F.R. § 501.807
     regulation
   • Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (68 Fed. Reg. 34196 (June 6, 2003))
     regulation
   • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3))
     procedural rule
   • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d))
     procedural rule
   • Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (607 U.S. 229 (2026))
     case law
   • Zevallos v. Obama (793 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2015))
     case law
   • Zevallos v. Obama (10 F. Supp. 3d 111 (D.D.C. 2014))
     case law
   • Karadzic v. Gacki (No. 23-cv-1226, 2024 WL 4253132 (D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2024))
     case law
   • Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (463 U.S. 29 (1983))
     case law
   • Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (643 U.S. 43)
     case law
   • AT&T Corp. v. FCC (349 F.3d 692 (D.C. Cir. 2003))
     case law
   • AT&T Corp. v. FCC (220 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2000))
     case law
   • Islamic American Relief Agency v. Gonzales (477 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2007))
     case law
   • Taylor v. Mills (892 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2012))
     case law
   • Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v. Ashcroft (333 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 2003))
     case law
   • Fares v. Smith (901 F.3d 315 (D.C. Cir. 2018))
     case law
   • Kiareldeen v. Ashcroft (273 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001))
     case law
   • National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State (251 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2001))
     case law
   • People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. United States Department of State (327 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2003))
     case law
   • Olenga v. Gacki (507 F. Supp. 3d 260 (D.D.C. 2020))
     case law
   • Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. v. FDA (587 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008))
     case law