USApedia

International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (view source)

Revision as of 02:10, 11 February 2025

8 bytes removed ,  11 February
m
Text replacement - "George W. Bush" to "George W. Bush"
VisualWikitext
m (Text replacement - "New York City" to "New York City")
m (Text replacement - "George W. Bush" to "George W. Bush")
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 67: Line 67:


===Since 9/11===
===Since 9/11===
Following the [[September 11 terror attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]], President [[George W. Bush]] issued [[Executive Order 13224]] under the IEEPA to block the assets of terrorist organizations.<ref>[[Executive Order 13224]], Sec. 1(a), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-09-25/pdf/01-24205.pdf</ref> The President delegated blocking authority to federal agencies led by the U.S. Treasury. In October 2001, Congress passed the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] which, in part, enhanced IEEPA asset blocking provisions under §1702(a)(1)(B) to permit the blocking of assets during the "pendency of an investigation." This statutory change gave the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control the power to block assets without the need to provide evidence of the blocking subject's wrongdoing nor to permit the blocking subject a chance to effectively respond to the allegations in court.<ref>''KindHearts v. Geithner'', 647 F. Supp. 2d 857, 866, ND Ohio 2009, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10931539635102900344&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&as_vis=1</ref> Executing these blocking actions led to a series of legal cases challenging federal authority to indefinitely prevent charitable organizations from accessing their assets held in the United States.<ref>See e.g., id.</ref>
Following the [[September 11 terror attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]], President George W. Bush issued [[Executive Order 13224]] under the IEEPA to block the assets of terrorist organizations.<ref>[[Executive Order 13224]], Sec. 1(a), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-09-25/pdf/01-24205.pdf</ref> The President delegated blocking authority to federal agencies led by the U.S. Treasury. In October 2001, Congress passed the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] which, in part, enhanced IEEPA asset blocking provisions under §1702(a)(1)(B) to permit the blocking of assets during the "pendency of an investigation." This statutory change gave the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control the power to block assets without the need to provide evidence of the blocking subject's wrongdoing nor to permit the blocking subject a chance to effectively respond to the allegations in court.<ref>''KindHearts v. Geithner'', 647 F. Supp. 2d 857, 866, ND Ohio 2009, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10931539635102900344&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&as_vis=1</ref> Executing these blocking actions led to a series of legal cases challenging federal authority to indefinitely prevent charitable organizations from accessing their assets held in the United States.<ref>See e.g., id.</ref>


President [[Donald Trump]] used the IEEPA extensively, sanctioning more than 3,700 entities and invoking 11 national emergency declarations (out of the 13 that he declared overall) relying primarily or exclusively on IEEPA authority during his 2017–21 term; Trump also used or threatened use of its powers in unconventional and unprecedented manners (including executive actions utilizing powers under the act that prompted legal challenges).<ref name="brennancenter"/>
President [[Donald Trump]] used the IEEPA extensively, sanctioning more than 3,700 entities and invoking 11 national emergency declarations (out of the 13 that he declared overall) relying primarily or exclusively on IEEPA authority during his 2017–21 term; Trump also used or threatened use of its powers in unconventional and unprecedented manners (including executive actions utilizing powers under the act that prompted legal challenges).<ref name="brennancenter"/>
Line 75: Line 75:
In September 2020, the Trump administration sanctioned and imposed visa restrictions on two [[International Criminal Court]] (ICC) officials, prosecutor [[Fatou Bensouda]] and Jurisdiction Complementarity and Cooperation Division Director [[Phakiso Mochochoko]], over the court's investigation into allegations of war crimes committed by the U.S. and Israel in Afghanistan and the [[Palestinian territories]], respectively. Critics considered the order an effort to intimidate ICC civil servants from proceeding with its investigation and accused the administration of targeting the two prosecutors, both of African origin, based on their race. The [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]] granted a preliminary injunction blocking the sanctions in January 2021, through a challenge to the order brought by four dual-national American law professors and the [[Open Society Justice Initiative]]. (The Biden administration lifted the ICC sanctions in April 2021.)<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump authorizes sanctions against International Criminal Court officials|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/icc-executive-order/index.html|author=Jennifer Hansler|website=[[CNN]]|date=April 2, 2021|access-date=December 31, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= 20 Civ. 8121 (KPF) - Opinion and Order|url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.545370/gov.uscourts.nysd.545370.56.0_1.pdf|publisher=[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]]|date=January 4, 2021|access-date=January 1, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=US lifts Trump-era sanctions against ICC prosecutor|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56620915|website=[[BBC News]]|date=June 14, 2020|access-date=December 31, 2022}}</ref>
In September 2020, the Trump administration sanctioned and imposed visa restrictions on two [[International Criminal Court]] (ICC) officials, prosecutor [[Fatou Bensouda]] and Jurisdiction Complementarity and Cooperation Division Director [[Phakiso Mochochoko]], over the court's investigation into allegations of war crimes committed by the U.S. and Israel in Afghanistan and the [[Palestinian territories]], respectively. Critics considered the order an effort to intimidate ICC civil servants from proceeding with its investigation and accused the administration of targeting the two prosecutors, both of African origin, based on their race. The [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]] granted a preliminary injunction blocking the sanctions in January 2021, through a challenge to the order brought by four dual-national American law professors and the [[Open Society Justice Initiative]]. (The Biden administration lifted the ICC sanctions in April 2021.)<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump authorizes sanctions against International Criminal Court officials|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/icc-executive-order/index.html|author=Jennifer Hansler|website=[[CNN]]|date=April 2, 2021|access-date=December 31, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= 20 Civ. 8121 (KPF) - Opinion and Order|url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.545370/gov.uscourts.nysd.545370.56.0_1.pdf|publisher=[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]]|date=January 4, 2021|access-date=January 1, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=US lifts Trump-era sanctions against ICC prosecutor|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56620915|website=[[BBC News]]|date=June 14, 2020|access-date=December 31, 2022}}</ref>


Also in September 2020, Trump used the IEEPA to [[Donald Trump–TikTok controversy|order the removal]] of social media platforms [[TikTok]] and [[WeChat]] from U.S. app stores as well as prohibit domestic business transactions involving their respective China-based parent companies [[ByteDance]] and [[Tencent]]; the restrictions would have become applicable to TikTok unless it was sold to an American company within 45 days of the executive order's issuance.<ref>{{cite web |last=Carvajal |first=Nikki |title=Trump issues executive order banning TikTok from operating in 45 days if it's not sold by Chinese parent company |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html |access-date=7 August 2020 |website=CNN |date=7 August 2020 |archive-date=10 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200810020022/https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite news|last=Arbel|first=Tali|date=6 August 2020|title=Trump bans dealings with Chinese owners of TikTok, WeChat|work=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/719d8c83f689929c9c9d8c9aa5593fc8|url-status=live|access-date=6 August 2020|archive-date=7 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807071140/https://apnews.com/719d8c83f689929c9c9d8c9aa5593fc8}}</ref> Observers (including Trump administration critics and many TikTok users) raised First Amendment concerns with the executive order and suggested that, while national security concerns were cited to justify them, the sanctions were prompted by the administration's hostile relations toward China in general and retaliation against TikTok in particular for certain anti-Trump content hosted by the app and, as also suggested by ByteDance in court documents pertaining to its lawsuit to overturn the order, a ticket reservation prank waged by some users of the video platform that depressed attendance for a campaign rally he held in [[Tulsa, Oklahoma]] that June.<ref>{{cite web|title=TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE LTD. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, WILBUR L. ROSS, JR.,and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE|url=https://www.scribd.com/embeds/473491411/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-CyfxmtdGZkTuD9VH6U9T|publisher=[[United States District Court for the Central District of California|U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division]]|via=Scribd|date=24 August 2020|access-date=14 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Is This The Real Reason Why Trump Wants To Ban TikTok? |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/08/01/is-this-the-real-reason-why-trump-wants-to-ban-tiktok/#59e70e624aed |first=Abram |last=Brown |work=Forbes |date=1 August 2020 |access-date=3 August 2020 |archive-date=3 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803094339/https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/08/01/is-this-the-real-reason-why-trump-wants-to-ban-tiktok/#59e70e624aed |url-status=live }}</ref> The executive order was blocked by federal courts in [[TikTok v. Trump|two separate cases]] on grounds that the sanctions likely violated IEEPA's informational materials exemption (under the Berman Amendment) and First Amendment protections applying to users of the apps.<ref>{{Cite web|title=U.S. Judge Halts Trump's TikTok Ban, Hours Before It Was Set To Start|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917452668/u-s-judge-halts-trumps-tiktok-ban-hours-before-it-was-set-to-start|access-date=2020-09-28|website=NPR.org|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=TikTok v. Trump |vol= |reporter=No. |opinion=1:20-cv-02658-CJN (Opinion)|pinpoint= |court=D.D.C. |date=Sep. 27, 2020|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257.30.0_3.pdf |accessdate=2020-09-28 |quote=}}</ref><ref name=commerceblock>{{cite web | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN26B0IU | title = U.S. judge blocks Commerce Department order to remove WeChat from app stores | first = David | last= Shepardson | date = September 20, 2020 | access-date= September 20, 2020 | publisher = [[Reuters]] }}</ref>
Also in September 2020, Trump used the IEEPA to [[Donald Trump–TikTok controversy|order the removal]] of social media platforms [[TikTok]] and [[WeChat]] from U.S. app stores as well as prohibit domestic business transactions involving their respective China-based parent companies [[ByteDance]] and [[Tencent]]; the restrictions would have become applicable to TikTok unless it was sold to an American company within 45 days of the executive order's issuance.<ref>{{cite web |last=Carvajal |first=Nikki |title=Trump issues executive order banning TikTok from operating in 45 days if it's not sold by Chinese parent company |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html |access-date=7 August 2020 |website=CNN |date=7 August 2020 |archive-date=10 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200810020022/https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite news|last=Arbel|first=Tali|date=6 August 2020|title=Trump bans dealings with Chinese owners of TikTok, WeChat|work=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/719d8c83f689929c9c9d8c9aa5593fc8|url-status=live|access-date=6 August 2020|archive-date=7 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807071140/https://apnews.com/719d8c83f689929c9c9d8c9aa5593fc8}}</ref> Observers (including Trump administration critics and many TikTok users) raised First Amendment concerns with the executive order and suggested that, while national security concerns were cited to justify them, the sanctions were prompted by the administration's hostile relations toward China in general and retaliation against TikTok in particular for certain anti-Trump content hosted by the app and, as also suggested by ByteDance in court documents pertaining to its lawsuit to overturn the order, a ticket reservation prank waged by some users of the video platform that depressed attendance for a campaign rally he held in [[Tulsa, Oklahoma]] that June.<ref>{{cite web|title=TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE LTD. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, WILBUR L. ROSS, JR.,and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE|url=https://www.scribd.com/embeds/473491411/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-CyfxmtdGZkTuD9VH6U9T|publisher=[[United States District Court for the Central District of California|U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division]]|via=Scribd|date=24 August 2020|access-date=14 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Is This The Real Reason Why Trump Wants To Ban TikTok? |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/08/01/is-this-the-real-reason-why-trump-wants-to-ban-tiktok/#59e70e624aed |first=Abram |last=Brown |work=Forbes |date=1 August 2020 |access-date=3 August 2020 |archive-date=3 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803094339/https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/08/01/is-this-the-real-reason-why-trump-wants-to-ban-tiktok/#59e70e624aed |url-status=live }}</ref> The executive order was blocked by federal courts in [[TikTok v. Trump|two separate cases]] on grounds that the sanctions likely violated IEEPA's informational materials exemption (under the Berman Amendment) and First Amendment protections applying to users of the apps.<ref>{{Cite web|title=U.S. Judge Halts Trump's TikTok Ban, Hours Before It Was Set To Start|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917452668/u-s-judge-halts-trumps-tiktok-ban-hours-before-it-was-set-to-start|access-date=2020-09-28|website=NPR.org|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=TikTok v. Trump |vol= |reporter=No. |opinion=1:20-cv-02658-CJN (Opinion)|pinpoint= |court=D.D.C. |date=Sep. 27, 2020|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257.30.0_3.pdf |accessdate=2020-09-28 |quote=}}</ref><ref name=commerceblock>{{cite web | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN26B0IU | title = U.S. judge blocks Commerce Department order to remove WeChat from app stores | first = David | last= Shepardson | date = September 20, 2020 | access-date= September 20, 2020 | publisher = Reuters }}</ref>


==Litigation==
==Litigation==
Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/26723...28196’