Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 1 of 68 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASTEXANS FOR ISRAEL; MICHAEL ISLEY;REGAVIM, A.R.; MEIR DEUTSCH; YOSEF BEN
CHAIM; and ARI ABRAMOWITZ,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:24-cv-167

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;JANET L. YELLEN, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Treasury; U.S. DEPARTMENTOF STATE; ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of State; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETSCONTROL; BRADLEY T. SMITH, in his official
capacity as Director of the Office of Foreign Assets
Control; FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENTNETWORK; and ANDREA GACKI, in her official
capacity as Director of the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network,

COMPLAINTDefendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1.

This litigation challenges the constitutionality and legality of

portions of Executive Order 14115 (“EO” or “EO 14115”) issued by the President
on February 1, 2024, which authorizes the imposition of financial sanctions and1Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 2 of 68 PageID 2

immigration restrictions on persons, including U.S. citizens, who take actions thatconflict with the Biden Administration’s (the “Administration”) policy in Judeaand Samaria (also known as the West Bank).1
2.

EO 14115 authorizes sanctions for two kinds of activities. One

focuses on “acts of violence,” including intimidation and property destruction. The
Administration’s public statements about the EO have focused exclusively on thistype of activity. Plaintiffs do not challenge that part of the EO.
3.

The other kind of sanctionable activity sweeps much more broadly,

however, as it does not require any proof of violent or illegal conduct before finding
a violation. The EO makes it sanctionable for a person to “directly or indirectly”
harm “peace, security, or stability of the West Bank.” This open-ended and vague
provision empowers the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the Departmentof Treasury (“OFAC”) to sanction anyone who acts contrary to what the Secretaryof the Treasury determines advances the cause of “peace, security, or stability of
the West Bank.” This violates the First Amendment.
4.

This

languageisparticularly

expansive

given

what

the

Administration has said it considers detrimental to “peace” in the West Bank. The
Administration considers the “two-state solution” essential to peace and has madeJudea and Samaria, also known as the “West Bank,” has been the home of theJewish People since biblical times. In modern times, the area was commonlydescribed as Judea and Samaria (by United Nations documents, for example),
until 1950, when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan sought to buttress its militaryoccupation by renaming the area “West Bank.” Plaintiffs strongly oppose use of
the term “West Bank,” as that term often is used to delegitimize Israel’s current
claim to the land and the Jewish People’s status as indigenous to the land.
However, for ease of understanding and to mirror the language of EO 14115,
Plaintiffs will use the term “West Bank” at certain intervals for the purposes ofthis Complaint.
12

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 3 of 68 PageID 3

clear that it considers the mere act of Jews residing in or making pilgrimage tosites in the West Bank as an “obstacle to peace.”2 In fact, the Administration haseven called visits of Jews to their holy sites “provocative”3 and thus presumably
harmful to the Administration’s perception of “stability.”5.

Since the start of the recent Israel–Hamas war, the Administration

also views those opposed to providing “humanitarian” aid to Hamas and its allies
in Gaza as detrimental to the “peace, security, or stability of the West Bank.”
6.

Thus, anyone advocating against the two-state solution or expressing

public opposition to the distribution of “humanitarian” aid to Hamas and its allies
may be regarded as an obstacle to peace and potentially sanctioned under EO
14115, even when advocating for such positions through purely peaceful andprotected means.
7.

Indeed, a memo circulated by the Biden Administration prior toissuing related visa ban sanctions made clear that the relevant conduct
encompasses anyone whose conduct would “obstruct, disrupt or prevent efforts toachieve a two-state solution.”4 This is the first and only sanctions regime wherean Administration has deemed ordinary, peaceful activities and reasonable
political positions supported by many Americans as inimical to “peace” andtherefore sanctionable.

2 Jacob Magid, ‘An obstacle to peace’: US lambasts Israeli moves to expand WestBank settlements, TIMES OF ISRAEL (June 19, 2024), https://bit.ly/3SBRCIa.
3 Ron Kampeas, Biden administration slam Itamar Ben-Gvir’s ‘provocative’ visit
to Temple Mount, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (May 22, 2023),
https://bit.ly/4ch6suu.
4 Alexander Ward, Biden orders top aides to prepare reprimands for violent
Israeli settlers in West Bank, Politico (Nov. 18, 2023), https://bit.ly/46Axvjm.
3

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

8.

Page 4 of 68 PageID 4

Activities that can “directly or indirectly” obstruct or disrupt a two-state solution can and do include speech and conduct protected by the First
Amendment.
9.

The broad scope of Section 1(a)(i)(A) of the EO means that any Israeli

national or private organization that publicly criticizes or peacefully campaigns
against the “two-state solution,” or provides support to Jews living in the West
Bank, is potentially subject to sanctions even though the individual ororganization may never have engaged in any violent or destructive activity related
to those policies. The EO therefore penalizes political and religious speechprotected by the First Amendment.
10.

The enforcement of the EO violates the constitutional rights ofAmerican citizens in four ways.
11.

First, as discussed, the government focuses exclusively on, andcondemns the religious beliefs of, Jews and those who assist Jews. For instance,
the United States Government does not claim the residence of non-Jews in theWest Bank constitutes an “obstacle to peace” nor that pilgrimage to non-Jewish
religious sites in the West Bank is “provocative.” This presents dual First
Amendment problems, penalizing only one particular category of speech based
upon its content (i.e., support for Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria) and
imposing sanctions upon only one particular category of people, as evidenced by
the fact that only Jewish individuals and groups have been sanctioned so far under
the EO. In this way, the EO infringes upon the free speech and the free exercise
rights of affected Jewish citizens, presenting two separate constitutional
violations.
4Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

12.

Page 5 of 68 PageID 5

Then, the fact that the EO discriminates on the basis of viewpoint

presents an equal-protection violation. Because the EO authorizes the Executive
Branch to impose financial sanctions on persons and entities simply because they
espouse a position contrary to the Administration’s Middle East policy, U.S.
citizens subject to such enforcement are deprived of the equal protection of federal
law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. While any infringement on speech rights
can violate the First Amendment, a speech infringement targeted at only a specificclass of people—namely, individuals engaging in their First Amendment right topractice their religion freely—violates the Fifth Amendment, as well.
13.

Finally, the EO violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

due to the unconstitutional overbreadth and vagueness of its key terms. Actions
that “threaten the peace, security, or stability of the West Bank” and are therefore
sanctionable under the EO are entirely within the eye of the beholder. While one
administration may think it has a clear-cut understanding of what types ofconduct those terms implicate, that understanding could change overnight when
new decision-makers take office. That lack of adequate notice of the types of speechand conduct that the EO deems sanctionable violates Plaintiffs’ right to due
process by rendering it impossible for them to conform their conduct to the dictatesof law.
14.

Beyond the four separate constitutional violations identified above,enforcement of the EO also impermissibly infringes upon the sincerely held
religious beliefs of American citizens, violating the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (RFRA). The EO—which punishes U.S. citizens who wish to exercise theirreligious beliefs by supporting Israel through monetary and other contributions—5Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 6 of 68 PageID 6

is unaccompanied by any interest sufficiently compelling to justify thisinfringement.
15.

The EO is also invalid because it lacks an adequate statutory basis.

Specifically, the factual predicates upon which the EO purports to be based—
relating to what it refers to as “settler violence” (i.e., violence inflicted by Jews wholive in the West Bank)—are rare in comparison to documented instances ofviolence inflicted against such Jewish settlers. Rather than perform any
independent factual investigation to analyze the true source of the threat to WestBank peace and stability, the Administration’s “factfinding” merely involved
collecting quotations from avowedly anti-Israel political groups with histories ofantisemitic conduct. Such “factfinding” does not provide a sufficient statutory
basis for the Administration to authorize sanctions. Using that material to impose
serious sanctions on individuals and entities is arbitrary and capricious.
16.

Finally, the EO extends not only to the primary targets mentioned

above, but also to third parties who in any way support such targets. Section 3 ofthe EO expands the scope of § 1 to the “making of any contribution or provision offunds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property andinterests in property are blocked pursuant to” the EO. Thus, donors (including
U.S. citizens) could potentially be caught in this dragnet and subjected tosanctions under EO 14115.
17.

The Administration has already used the amorphous “peace,security, and stability” language to target a nonviolent protest group operating
outside the West Bank that stages demonstrations against the delivery of aid toHamas-controlled Gaza—an area clearly not encompassed within the West Bank.
6

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

18.

Page 7 of 68 PageID 7

The scope of this sanctioning authority is unprecedented, as it targets

beliefs held by many, if not most, Americans. The Administration is within its
foreign-policy prerogatives to pursue a two-state solution or oppose Israeli
settlements. But that does not make people who take the contrary position fringeor radical—in fact, the Republican Party platform does not support the two-statesolution (the Texas Republican Party affirmatively opposes the two-state solution)and does not view Jewish land ownership in the West Bank as contrary tointernational law or “illegal.” Persons engaging in speech or peaceful conductconsistent with the view of a major national party may therefore find themselves
sanctioned, without notice, on the ground that their advocacy violates federal law.
19.

Similarly, the manner in which the “violence” sanctions areadministered makes it dangerous and difficult for Americans to engage in any kindof First Amendment activity with Jewish persons in the West Bank. Persons canbe sanctioned (and have been sanctioned) notwithstanding the absence of criminal
convictions or complaints (or documented violent acts), based solely on allegations
made by partisan non-governmental organizations. Because the U.S. government
has no credible process for verifying allegations against sanctioned persons, it is
impossible for third parties, like some of the U.S.-based Plaintiffs, to knowwhether anyone with whom they interact in the West Bank in exercise of theirconstitutional rights may suddenly be deemed a sanctioned individual.
20.

In short, the lack of process for making such determinations makes

it impossible for third parties to conduct due diligence.
21.

Because of the exceedingly broad scope of sanctions authority withrespect to non-violent conduct and the lack of any prior notice to sanctions targets,7

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 8 of 68 PageID 8

any support for or involvement with Israelis that is consistent with Plaintiffs’
views could make them subject to sanctions—without notice—under Section 3.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22.

This Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the U.S. Constitution; theAdministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. (“APA”); the Immigration andNationality Act (“INA”); and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000bb-1(a).
23.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) &(e)(1). A substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this
district, and each Defendant is an officer of the United States sued in his or her
official capacity.
PLAINTIFFS
24.

Michael Isley, a longtime resident of Amarillo, Texas, is the

President of Texans for Israel. He became committed to the importance of Israel
as a child after learning about Israel as the land to which Moses led the Jewish
people and the land in which Jesus lived.
25.

Mr. Isley started Texans for Israel with friends while in college.

Inspired by a historically rich visit to an archaeological dig in Israel, the friends
were moved to create an organization that, as its website proclaims, “stands
committed to wholeheartedly supporting the Jewish People in their ancestral
homeland of Israel.”5 The mission statement notes that “[a]s a registered 501c3

5 TEXANS FOR ISRAEL, https://www.texansforisrael.com (last visited Aug. 2, 2024).

8

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 9 of 68 PageID 9

nonprofit organization, [Texans for Israel’s] mission is to extend aid to individuals,organizations, and communities, focusing especially on those in the heartland of
Israel: Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria.”
26.

As President of Texans for Israel, Mr. Isley first visited Israel in 1980

and has visited over 50 times since. In the last several years, it has been Mr. Isley’s
habit to visit Israel two to three times per year.
27.

Specifically, as President of Texans for Israel, Mr. Isley has traveled

to Judea and Samaria over 40 times. Mr. Isley’s understanding of Judea andSamaria as the Jewish homeland is an integral part of his Christian faith. As he
has previously stated: “One of our goals is to teach and tell our Christian friends
to support Judea and Samaria. It is the road on which the patriarchs walked. It is
the Cave of the Patriarchs bought by Abraham.”628.

As a function of his profound appreciation for and religious

commitment to Israel, Mr. Isley maintains deep ties to communities throughout
Judea and Samaria.
29.

For instance, Mr. Isley has for many years joined HaYovel—anorganization that matches interested volunteers with Jewish farmers residing in
Judea and Samaria—and picked grapes in Har Bracha, a town on the southernridge of Mount Gerizim, a mountain located in Samaria.
30.

Acting through Texans for Israel, Mr. Isley has cultivated a strong

relationship with the Jewish community in Hebron—a historical Jewish holy cityin Judea—as well. He and Texans for Israel have hosted Mr. Yishai Fleischer, the6Mike Isley – A Texan for Israel, CHRISTIAN FRIENDS OF ISRAELI COMMUNITIES,

https://cfoic.com/meet-christian-zionists/mike-isley (last visited Aug. 2, 2024).
9

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 10 of 68 PageID 10

international spokesman for the Jewish Community of Hebron, at Mr. Isley’s homein Texas many times to educate Americans, particularly religious Christians,
about the importance of Jewish sovereignty in Hebron. Mr. Isley has also donatedto the Hebron Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization whose principal location is Brooklyn,
New York. Likewise, Mr. Isley has traveled to New York for Hebron Fund
meetings.
31.

Mr. Isley even assisted in producing a film about one of his trips to

Judea and Samaria to educate people about the righteousness of Jewish presence
there, and the moral, religious, and historical basis for the Jewish claim tosovereignty over this area.
32.

Through his relationship to communities in Judea and Samaria, Mr.

Isley actively works to increase ties between the Israeli and American
governments. For instance, acting as President of Texans for Israel, Mr. Isley
brought Mr. Tommy Waller and then-Members of Knesset (“MK”) Sharon Haskel
and Yehuda Glick from the West Bank to President Trump’s inauguration in
January 2017. In the same capacity, Mr. Isley has invited members of the Israeli
Knesset, including Ohad Tal, and others, including Yishai Fleisher and David
Wilder, to Washington, D.C., to meet with members of U.S. Congress. Similarly,
he brought then-MK’s Sharren Hasskel and Yehuda Glick to the 2016 Texas
Inaugural Ball for Governor Greg Abbott.
33.

In turn, Ari Abramowitz, a citizen of Israel and resident of Samaria,

has stayed at Mr. Isley’s home many times as well, and, as Mr. Isley intended,those visits have enabled Mr. Abramowitz to speak with Americans about the10Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 11 of 68 PageID 11

history and current work carried out by the Jewish communities in Judea andSamaria.
34.

Each of the Israelis identified in paragraphs 30, 32, and 33—whom

Mr. Isley and Texans for Israel support financially and whom they have invited to
the United States for the purposes of education and fundraising—are individuals
who hold views and engage in activities, including First Amendment protectedspeech, that the Biden Administration would regard as “threaten[ing] peace andsecurity” in the Middle East.
35.

Prior to the issuance of EO 14115, Mr. Isley and Texans for Israel

had intended to continue inviting the aforementioned individuals to visit theUnited States in order to assist them in their fundraising efforts and to provide
them with a platform for educating Americans on the moral, historical, andreligious right of the Jewish people to live and be sovereign in the West Bank.
36.

By virtue of supporting said individuals and organizations, Mr. Isley

fears that he himself, as well as his organization Texans for Israel, could be
subjected to sanctions without prior notice, and this fear has chilled his ability tocontinue to support the invitation of the above-mentioned individuals to theUnited States to enable them to speak to government officials and ordinary
citizens about Israel—and specifically, about Judea and Samaria.
37.

Plaintiff Ari Abramowitz is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, currently

residing in the village of Ma’aleh Amos in the Gush Etzion Regional Council
municipality of Judea and Samaria.

11

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

38.

Page 12 of 68 PageID 12

Mr. Abramowitz is a co-founder of Arugot Farm, an organic farm andretreat center located in southeastern Judea.7 According to Mr. Abramowitz, thefarm is located “in an area critical to the safety and security of Israel and theJewish people.”8 As described on the website of Arugot Farm:
Located in the heart of the biblical ‘Wilderness of Zif’
where King David composed many of the Psalms andhid from King Saul, in just a few years, the Arugot
Farm has been transformed from a barren desolate
wilderness to a Garden of Eden-like oasis, unlike
anything in the Land of Israel.9
39.

Mr. Abramowitz actively encourages the establishment of otherJewish owned and operated farming communities on state land in Judea andSamaria. One medium for doing so is the website thelandofisrael.com.
40.

Mr. Abramowitz also assists Jewish farmers and agricultural

institutions in Judea and Samaria by peacefully opposing attempts by PalestinianArabs and anti-Zionist individuals, organizations, and governmental and quasigovernmental bodies to interfere with Jewish agricultural endeavors in Judea andSamaria.
41.

Mr. Abramowitz met Mr. Isley in or around 2001 while the latter was

visiting Israel. After meeting, a friendship of shared ideals blossomed.
42.

Because Mr. Isley agrees with the goals of Mr. Abramowitz andwishes to help advance them, Mr. Isley has donated to thelandofisrael.com andhas invited Mr. Abramowitz to speak in the United States.

7 ARUGOT FARM, https://arugotfarm.co.il/ (last visited Aug. 2, 2024).
8 Id.

9 About, ARUGOT FARM, https://arugotfarm.co.il/about (last visited Aug. 2, 2024).

12

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

43.

Page 13 of 68 PageID 13

In turn, Mr. Abramowitz has invited Mr. Isley to stay with him for

up to two months at a time—and Mr. Isley has done so.
44.

Because Mr. Abramowitz lives on an isolated farm and because

Palestinian terror groups reject Jews living anywhere in the West Bank—suchgroups seek to “cleanse” the entire land of Jews—his farm has been repeatedly
subjected to violent attacks. For example:
a. In an ambush in an olive grove, Palestinian terrorists threw largestones at his car, endangering his life.
b. In a separate incident, his wife had her car stoned by Palestinian
terrorists, while she was transporting their children.
c. A shepherd employed by the farm was ambushed and badly beaten
while herding the farm’s flock, requiring multiple stitches to hishead.
d. After suffering a car accident, Mr. Abramowitz’s car was stolen by
Palestinians while he was waiting for help.
45.

Mr. Abramowitz now fears venturing outside. Should he, his wife, or

his children again be attacked by Palestinian terrorists and should he use force todefend himself and his family, Mr. Abramowitz may find himself subject to theseharsh sanctions without notice.
46.

Plaintiff Regavim, A.R. (“Regavim”) is a non-profit organization(“Amuta”), established in 2006 and existing under the laws of the State of Israel.
Regavim is a public movement dedicated to protecting Israel’s national lands andresources. Specifically, Regavim actively opposes illegal construction in all sectors
as well as other methods of illegal seizure and control of Israel’s state lands and13

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 14 of 68 PageID 14

other assets by the Palestinian Authority. Regavim has consistently called forequal and universal law enforcement and for government action to halt foreign
funding and support for illegal activities that violate Israeli jurisdiction andinternational law.
47.

In line with its advocacy for the rights of Jews and the State of Israel,

Regavim actively opposes the supply of so-called “humanitarian” aid to Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, and the myriad of organized crime cartels and other terrorist
organizations currently wreaking havoc in the Gaza Strip.
48.

To that end, Regavim supported the grassroots movement known as“Tzav 9,” a non-partisan, unincorporated association comprising some 15,000
individuals from diverse backgrounds, religious affiliations, and philosophicalorientations, including Jews, Christians and Muslims. Regavim supported Tzav 9
in various ways, including but not limited to the following: (1) providing
administrative and other back office services; (2) assisting in the preparation anddissemination of public relations and other materials in the United States, Israel,
and around the world, explaining Tzav 9’s agenda and activity; (3) at the requestof religious and other institutions in the United States and on its own initiative,
dispatching spokespersons and activists from Tzav 9 and other organizations to
explain the misuse of “humanitarian” aid and U.S. taxpayer monies to the benefitof Hamas, and to the detriment of the non-terrorist Gaza civilian population; (4)appearing before government and non-governmental organizations to educate
policy makers, opinion makers and social influencers, regarding the misuse of“humanitarian” aid to support Hamas and its affiliated terrorist organizations andto persuade governmental bodies to cease and desist from delivering
14

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 15 of 68 PageID 15“humanitarian” aid to Hamas in order to protect Israeli citizens and to facilitate
the safe return of the hostages brutally taken by Hamas and its terrorist affiliates
on October 7, 2023.
49.

From its inception, members of Tzav 9 have engaged in peaceful actsof protest and civil disobedience to prevent the delivery of “humanitarian” aid into
the hands of Hamas and its affiliates.
50.

Senior leaders of Regavim include numerous U.S. citizens whocurrently reside in Israel, including Judea and Samaria, as well as Israeli citizens
and other nationals. A significant percentage of Regavim’s revenue originates from
American donors residing in the United States and in Israel.
51.

Contributions to Regavim are made through the social charity

platform known as JGive.com, which is a project funded by the American Society
for Overseas Research (“ASOR”), “a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization whose
mission is to initiate, encourage, and support research into, and public
understanding of, the history and cultures of the Near East and wider
Mediterranean world, from the earliest times. ASOR is apolitical and has no
religious affiliation.”1052.

On June 14, 2024, OFAC placed Tzav 9 on its list of “Specially

Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” (“SDN List”), pursuant to EO 14115.
In doing so, OFAC froze Tzav 9’s assets in its JGive account and has sinceprohibited Americans from aiding the group in any manner.
53.

According to the press release issued by the U.S. Department ofState, Tzav 9 was sanctioned pursuant to section 1(a)(i)(A) of the EO “for being

10 About ASOR, ASOR, https://bit.ly/3Wy3Brh (last visited Aug. 5, 2024).

15

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 16 of 68 PageID 16

responsible for or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged or
attempted to engage in actions—including directing, enacting, implementing,enforcing, or failing to enforce policies—that threaten the peace, security, or
stability of the West Bank.”11 As a result of the sanctions, JGive has frozen
approximately 300,000 NIS (approximately $80,000) in donations. A significant
portion of that amount was intended to be paid to Regavim for expenditures
incurred on behalf of Tzav 9.
54.

Due to the actions already taken by the Biden administration in

implementing EO 14115 with the revealed purpose to regulate Jewish settlers,
along with the all-encompassing language of the EO that prevents financial
contributions and other forms of support, Regavim is in imminent fear of
sanctions.
55.

Plaintiff Meir Deutsch is the Director General of Regavim. He is adual U.S.-Israeli citizen who permanently resides in the West Bank. He serves asa major (reserves) in the Israeli Defense Forces (“IDF”).
56.

Mr. Deutsch—a staunch opponent of the two-state solution advocatedby the Biden Administration—is an orthodox, Zionist Jew who strongly believesin the Jewish People’s right to reside in Biblical Israel, including and especially in
Judea and Samaria. Mr. Deutsch believes that the exercise of the Jewish People’s
rights in Judea and Samaria should be anchored and protected in Israeli andinternational law and achieved through peaceful means.

11 Press Statement, Office of the Spokesperson, U.S. Dep’t of State, Sanctioning

Israeli Group for Disrupting and Destroying Humanitarian Aid to Civilians(June 14, 2024), https://www.state.gov/sanctioning-israeli-group-for-disruptingand-destroying-humanitarian-aid-to-civilians/.
16

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

57.

Page 17 of 68 PageID 17

Because of his monetary support to projects and organizations(including Tzav 9) that—according to the Biden Administration—threaten thepeace and stability of the West Bank, Mr. Deutsch is in imminent threat ofsanctions.
58.

Plaintiff Yosef Ben Chaim is a dual U.S.–Israeli citizen who

permanently resides in Netivot, Israel. Yosef is the husband of Reut Ben Chaim,
who was sanctioned under EO 14115 on July 11, 2024, for her involvement in the
Tzav 9 movement and her participation in the peaceful protests against thetransfer of “humanitarian” aid to Hamas and the other terrorist organizations in
Gaza. Yosef and Reut have eight children, all minors. Reut maintains a small
tour guide business—“Reut Hadrachot v’Proyektim”—and, as an employee of thebusiness and (prior to the sanctions), Yosef received a monthly salary. As wediscuss in more detail below, Yosef has been significantly and detrimentallyaffected by the sanctioning of his wife. Shortly after being sanctioned, Reut’sbank account—including her small business account—in Israel was frozen. Yosef
is no longer able to receive any salary from his employer. On top of all this,Yosef cannot finance basic, day-to-day essential transactions: food, education,
medicine, hygiene products (i.e., diapers, etc.), mortgage payments, etc. Yosef
actively supported his wife’s activities and believed that by protesting theprovision of “humanitarian” aid to Hamas, Reut was doing what was right andjust. Despite his ongoing work responsibilities and other pressing matters, Yosef
would take care of his family of eight while Reut peacefully protested against
providing aid to terrorist organizations in Gaza.

17

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 18 of 68 PageID 18

DEFENDANTS
59.

Defendant U.S.

Department

of

the

Treasury (“Treasury

Department”) is a federal agency responsible for implementing sections of EO
14115. The Treasury Department is a Department of the Executive Branch of theUnited States Government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(f).
60.

Defendant Janet L. Yellen is the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury

Department (“Secretary of the Treasury”) and was responsible for formulating thepolicy behind EO 14115 and, subsequently, implementing it in her capacity as the
Secretary of the Treasury.
61.

Defendant U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) is afederal agency responsible for implementing EO 14115. The State Department isa Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government and is anagency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
62.

Defendant Antony Blinken is the U.S. Secretary of State and was

responsible for formulating the policy behind EO 14115 and, subsequently,
implementing it in his capacity as the Secretary of State.
63.

Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is afederal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the Immigration andNationality Act and EO 14115. DHS is a Department of the Executive Branch of
the United States Government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(f).

18

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

64.

Page 19 of 68 PageID 19

Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Secretary of DHS and was

responsible for formulating the policy behind EO 14115 and, subsequently,
implementing it in his capacity as the Secretary of DHS.
65.

Defendant Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is acomponent of the Treasury Department and is responsible for implementing
sections of EO 14115 pertaining to financial sanctions.
66.

Defendant Bradley T. Smith is the current director of OFAC.

67.

Defendant Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”)

is a component of the Treasury Department and is responsible for implementing
sections of EO 14115 vis-à-vis U.S. banking and other financial institutions.
68.

Defendant Andrea Gacki is the current director of FinCEN.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Issuance of EO 14115
69.

On February 1, 2024, President Biden issued EO 14115 pursuant to

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.)(“IEEPA”), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. §1601 et seq.) (“NEA”), section
212(f) and section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”)(8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)), and section 301 of Title 3, United States
Code.12 See Exhibit A.

123 U.S.C. § 300, entitled “General Authorization to Delegate Functions”:

The President of the United States is authorized to designate and empower
the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official
thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the
President (1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any
19

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

70.

Page 20 of 68 PageID 20

EO 14115 creates a new and unique sanctions regime aimed at

persons who are deemed a threat to the stability of the “West Bank.”
71.

EO Section 1 lists four potential targets that can be sanctioned:(a) A foreign person13 responsible for or complicit in, or that has directly or
indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in:(1) Actions—including directing, enacting, implementing, enforcing, or
failing to enforce policies—that threaten the peace, security, or
stability of the West Bank. EO, §1(a)(i)(A).
(2) planning, ordering, otherwise directing, or participating in any of thefollowing actions affecting the West Bank: (1) acts of violence; (2)placing civilians in reasonable fear of violence; (3) property
destruction; (4) seizure of property. EO, §1(a)(i)(B).
(b) A leader or official of an entity, including any government entity, thathas engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities
in sections (a)(1) and (a)(2) or a leader of an entity whose property andinterests in property are blocked as a result of activities relating to theleader’s or official’s tenure. EO, §1(a)(ii)(A)-(B).

function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform onlywith or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President...
13 The term “person” means an “individual or entity.” EO, §7(c). The term “foreign

person” is not defined in the EO. For purposes of sanctions under Narcotics
Trafficking Sanctions Regulation, 31 C.F.R. §536 et seq., the term “foreign person”
includes “any citizen or national of a foreign state (including any such individual
who is also a citizen or national of the United States)” 31 C.F.R. §536.304. Thisdefinition does not expressly apply to the sanctions under EO 14115. See also 31
C.F.R. § 536.300, which provides that the definitions apply to the Narcotics
Trafficking Sanctions only.
20

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 21 of 68 PageID 21(c) A foreign person who has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided
financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services toor in support of, any person blocked pursuant to the EO. EO, §1(a)(iii).
(d) An entity owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act foror on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person blocked pursuant to EO.
EO, §1(a)(iv).
72.

The imposition of sanctions under Section 1 requires a determinationby the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, or
vice versa.
73.

In addition to the sanctions regime, the EO also prohibits (a) making

any contribution of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of a blocked
person, EO, § 3(a); and (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds,
goods, or services from any such person, EO, § 3(b).14 See also EO, § 5(a) (“Anytransaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causesa violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this orderis prohibited . . . .”).
74.

In contrast to the EO’s sanctions regime, Section 3’s prohibition

applies to anyone, including U.S. citizens. See Background Press Call On
Upcoming Measures to Address Actions That Undermine Peace, Security, andStability in the West Bank (Feb. 1, 2024) (“Background Press Call”) (“It will also
prohibit U.S. persons making any contribution or provision of funds, goods, orservices by, to, or for the benefit of any of these persons, and the receipt of any

14 As noted, making a contribution that materially assists a blocked person is also

sanctionable under Section 1(a)(iii) of EO 14115.
21

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 22 of 68 PageID 22

contribution of provision of funds, goods, or services from those persons . . .”(emphasis added)).15
75.

EO Section 4 imposes sanctions under the INA, barring the entry of

any individual who meets “one or more of the criteria in section 1” of the EO. The
Department of Homeland Security administers immigration sanctions in
consultation with the Department of State.
76.

Notably, EO Section 8 allows for all measures taken pursuant to the

EO to be carried out without any prior notice to the affected individual or entity.
77.

The EO does not expressly refer to race or religion. However, theintent, creation, and implementation of the EO were all directed at the Jewish
settler population, and no other. The Background Press Call discussed only actions
by the Jewish settler community. Moreover, on the same day the EO was issued,
Defendant FinCEN issued a “FinCEN Alert” entitled “Alert on Israeli Extremist
Settler Violence Against Palestinians in the West Bank” (“FinCEN Alert”).16 The
FinCEN Alert begins with the following statement:
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is issuing thisalert to financial institutions related to the financing of Israeli
extremist settler violence against Palestinians in the WestBank. (emphasis added).

15 Press Release, National Security Council, White House, Background Press

Call On Upcoming Measures to Address Actions That Undermine Peace,
Security, and Stability in the West Bank (Feb. 1. 2024), https://bit.ly/4daOaMP.
16 FIN. CRIMES ENF’T NETWORK, FINCEN ALERT ON ISRAELI EXTREMIST SETTLERVIOLENCE AGAINST PALESTINIANS IN THE WEST BANK, FIN-2024-Alert001 (Feb. 1,2024), https://bit.ly/3AbBlmR.
22

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 23 of 68 PageID 23

B. Historical Background
78.

Judea and Samaria have been the home of the Jewish People sincebiblical times. It is estimated that approximately 92% of all place names
mentioned in the Bible are located in Judea and Samaria.17 The very name bywhich the Jewish People have been known for millennia is derived from the polity
and geographic region known as Judea.
79.

By decision of the Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920 and the Leagueof Nations in the Mandate for Palestine of 1922, Judea and Samaria were includedin the parcel of land to be administered by Great Britain. This land was referred
to as “Palestine.”
80.

In the Palestine Mandate, the League of Nations charged GreatBritain with the responsibility of establishing a “Jewish national home” in the
mandated territory in recognition of “the historical connection of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in thatcountry.” Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate charged Great Britain with the duty
to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and to “encourage … close settlement by Jews
on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public
purposes.”81.

Following the General Assembly’s peace proposal involving thecreation of a Jewish state in 1947 and the expiration of the Mandate in 1948, theFor example, Bethlehem (Old Testament, Genesis 35:19; New Testament,
Matthew 2; Luke 2), Hebron (Old Testament, Genesis 13:18); Shilo (Old
Testament, Genesis 49:10), Bet-El (Old Testament, Genesis 12 and 13), Shechem(Old Testament, Genesis 12:6), Michmas (Book of Samual I, 13:16), Jericho (Bookof Joshua, 6:1-5; New Testament, Matthew, 20: 20-34), Tekoa (Book of Samual II,14:2), and many others, are all situated in Judea and Samaria.
1723

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 24 of 68 PageID 24

Arab states and Palestinian Arab irregulars declared war against the Jews
residing there and the nascent State of Israel, with the aim of destroying the newly
declared Jewish State.
82.

During Israel’s War of Independence, the Kingdom of Transjordan

managed to occupy significant parts of Mandatory Palestine, including parts ofJerusalem and significant territory in Judea and Samaria. To assert its claim to
Judea and Samaria, Transjordan, which previously comprised only territory on
the east bank of the Jordan River, changed its name to “Jordan,” while referringto Judea and Samaria, which lay on the west bank of the Jordan River as the“West Bank”. Thus, the Jordanian occupation is the source of the term “WestBank.”
83.

Armistice agreements signed between Jordan and Israel in 1949 put

a temporary halt to the hostilities, while specifying that the Armistice Lines would
not constitute any final international boundary between the combatants. Hence,
Jordan’s later claims to have “annexed” the West Bank were never recognized by
the international community.18
84.

During its occupation of Judea and Samaria from 1948 to 1967,

Jordan ethnically cleansed the entire Jewish population from the areas under its
control, destroying numerous Jewish communities in the West Bank andJerusalem.

18 See generally Yehuda Blum, The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Statusof Judea and Samaria, 3 ISR. L. REV. 279 (1968). Because the West Bank neverformally became a part of Jordan, Jewish settlements in the West Bank do not
violate the Geneva Conventions or international law (because the West Bank is
not the territory of a signatory party).
24

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

85.

Page 25 of 68 PageID 25

In June 1967, during the Six Day War, the West Bank was liberated

from Jordanian occupation and reunited with the State of Israel. It has been undercontinuous Israeli administration to this day.
86.

During the period of Israeli administration of the West Bank, thegovernment of Israel and the people of Israel reestablished Jewish communities
throughout biblical Judea and Samaria. The current Jewish population isapproximately 600,000 persons, who reside in hundreds of cities, towns, andvillages.
87.

Many Jews and Gentiles both in Israel and throughout the world

believe that the Jewish People have a legal, historical, and religious right and duty
to settle throughout the Land of Israel, including and especially Judea andSamaria.
88.

The final legal status of these areas remains in dispute.

89.

For many years, opponents of a Jewish presence in the West Bank

attempted to limit the rights of both American and Israeli citizens to speak,
campaign, and fulfill their religious beliefs and obligations regarding Judea andSamaria.
90.

Indeed, the United States Government has engaged in a long line of

discriminatory actions against those who support a Jewish presence in Judea andSamaria.
91.

For example, the first lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service(IRS) alleging viewpoint discrimination concerned a pro-Israel non-profit, Z Street,
whose application for non-profit status the IRS allowed to languish. Z Street’s
support of a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria in part fueled the IRS’s
25

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 26 of 68 PageID 26

discriminatory treatment of Z Street.19 The IRS eventually settled with Z Street,issuing a formal apology.
92.

Yet another example is the federal government’s boycott of Jewish

higher education institutions located in the West Bank under which federal grantmonies were prohibited from being distributed for research and other purposes.
This policy was rescinded by the Trump Administration and reinstituted during
the Biden Administration.20
93.

EO 14115 is the latest step in this effort to curtail Jewish rights in

Judea and Samaria. EO 14115 creates a new and unique sanctions regime,
purporting to give U.S. agencies the authority to punish persons and entities whotake actions or assume religious positions that do not align with the
Administration’s preferred Middle East policy.
94.

U.S. agencies implementing EO 14115 have focused almost

exclusively on alleged Jewish threats to the President’s vision, while largely
ignoring threats emanating from any other source.
95.

Even though the EO is premised on the proposition that a sanctions

regime is necessary to promote peace, stability, and security in the Middle East, it
focuses nearly exclusively on peaceful Jewish groups, utterly ignoring theprincipal source of terror, both in the West Bank and throughout the Land of
Israel; namely, Palestinian terror, which has reached epic proportions in the past
year, as the world witnessed on October 7, 2023.

19 Lori Lowenthal Marcus, The IRS Campaign Against Israel—and Us, WALL ST.

J. (Feb. 1, 2018), https://bit.ly/3WxY97Y.
20 Staff, AFP & Jacob Magid, US cuts science, tech cooperation with Israeli
institutions in the West Bank, TIMES OF ISRAEL (June 27, 2023),
https://bit.ly/3yvSes3.
26

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

96.

Page 27 of 68 PageID 27

Worse, the factual predicate upon which the EO rests—so-called“settler violence”—has been accepted by the Biden Administration without any
independent research or analysis. Had Defendants properly discharged theirduties, they would have realized that the data relied upon is inaccurate andbiased. In fact, it was provided by anti-Jewish groups and groups opposed to thevery existence of Israel.
97.

To date, the only individuals who have been placed on the EO’s

sanction list are Jews (see immediately below) even though there are, literally,
thousands of Palestinians who, in the last several months, have engaged in
activities that unquestionably threaten the “peace, security, or stability of theWest Bank.” EO, §1(a)(i)(A).
98.

For instance, it is the formal and public policy of the Palestinian

Authority to funnel millions of dollars per year to terrorists and their families asa reward for the murder of Jews in a program coined “Pay for Slay.”21 This
program unequivocally “threaten[s] the peace, security, or stability of the WestBank.”
99.

Althoughthesepayments

are

made

monthly,

the

Biden

Administration has not sanctioned a single person for making or receiving suchpayments and has not stated any intention to impose sanctions related to themaking or receipt of such payments. Moreover, members of the Palestinian
Authority Security Forces—trained, armed and funded by the United States

21 Adam Rasgon & Mohammed Najib, Israel Cracks Down on Banks Over

Payments to Palestinian Inmates, N.Y. TIMES (May 9, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/world/middleeast/israel-palestinianinmates-banks.html.
27

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 28 of 68 PageID 28

government since 1995—have committed acts of terrorism, including murder andattempted murder of Israeli and American citizens.22 The Palestinian Authority
encourages and glorifies these acts of terrorism, uses US-provided resources tomemorialize the terrorists and to support their families, and publishes the namesof the terrorists from among its ranks, but this has not led to any resulting
sanctions on either perpetrators or the leaders of the organizations of which they
are members. To date, Palestinian officials who preside over the Palestinian
Authority’s system of murder for hire, known as “pay for slay,” have not been
sanctioned.
C. Defendants’ failure to engage in proper fact-finding
100.

Upon information and belief, Defendants have not engaged in any

meaningful fact-finding or analysis in support of the factual predicate for EO
14115. Instead, Defendants have adopted indiscriminately false and misleading
allegations of misconduct by Jewish residents of the West Bank without making
any effort to verify and validate such allegations with any of the following parties:
the targets of the EO; local government authorities; Israeli police; the Israeli
Defense Force (“IDF”) (who are the legitimate government authority throughout
the West Bank); and Israeli government officials, including the Minister ofDefense.

22 See generally Regavim (R.A.), OFFICERS BY DAY, TERRORISTS BY NIGHT (2024),

availableathttps://www.regavim.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/regavimTerrorReportEng1202.pdf. This report, issued
by Plaintiff Regavim, exemplifies the arbitrary nature of EO 14115 byunderscoring the frequency with which Palestinian authorities, unabashedly andwithout consequence, engage in terrorism against neighboring Jews.
28

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

101.

In

addition,

Defendants

have

not

Page 29 of 68 PageID 29

publishedanystatistics

documenting the so-called “Israeli extremist settler violence” that the President
cited as authority for declaring a “national emergency” under the IEEPA and theNEA. See 50 U.S.C. §1701(a) and 50 U.S.C. §1621.
102.

The FinCEN Alert indicates that Defendants relied upon data fromthe website of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (“OCHA”).23
103.

With respect to Israel, OCHA has a history of “parroting . . . false anddistorted claims, thereby seeking to give credence and credibility to highly
misleading accusations.”24 Also, OCHA oversees and facilitates government
funding to a host of anti-Israel and even antisemitic organizations.25
104.

The degree of such bias is acute and alarming, and the resulting

reports and data patently dishonest. For instance, OCHA routinely characterizes
acts of self-defense against Palestinian terrorists as a form of “settler violence” tomorallyequivocate

between

Palestinian

terrorists

andJewishfarmingcommunities.
105.

For instance, OCHA reported 856 incidents of “settler violence” in2022, using the terms “settler-related incidents,” “settler violence,” and “settler
attacks” interchangeably. However, OCHA’s definition of “incidents involving
Israeli settlers” is deceptively broad and captures the numerous and frequent

23 FINCEN ALERT ON ISRAELI EXTREMIST SETTLER VIOLENCE, supra note 17, at n.2(“For statistics related to ongoing violence and casualties in the West Bank, see
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs . . .”).
24 Core Bias in the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA-oPt), NGO MONITOR (Feb. 1, 2017), https://bit.ly/4d8d9R9.
25 Id.
29

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 30 of 68 PageID 30

incidents in which Israelis must defend themselves against Palestinian terrorists.
Indeed, OCHA includes among Palestinian victims of alleged settler violence,“Palestinians killed or injured during attacks or alleged attacks they perpetrated
against Israeli settlers” in addition to various other categories, including “attacks
and alleged attacks by Israeli settlers.”26
106.

Thus, OCHA counts as victims of “settler violence” any Palestinian

killed or harmed in any encounter with Israeli nationals, even where the killed or
injured Palestinian was harmed during the course of carrying out a terrorist attack.
107.

For instance, the OCHA Palestinian casualty dashboard appears tocount the wounding of the terrorist who shot David Stern as the wounding of a
Palestinian by an Israeli civilian settler.27 In March 2023, Israeli civilian Mr.
Stern had been driving through the Palestinian town of Huwara with his wife
when a terrorist opened fire, shooting Mr. Stern in the head. Mr. Stern respondedwith his own gunfire.28

26 Data on Casualties, OCHA: UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF

HUMAN AFFAIRS, https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties (last visited Aug. 2,2024); Nahal Toosi, US says Palestinians are close to changing ‘pay for slay’
program, POLITICO (Mar. 29, 2024), https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/29/ussays-palestinians-are-close-to-changing-pay-for-slay-program-00149734.
27 Data on Casualties, supra note 26. We arrived at this conclusion based on thefact that only one Palestinian injury by an Israeli settler in the West Bank isrecorded for the day of March 17, 2023 (the day of the attack on Mr. Stern). To
arrive at this result, (1) select “Palestinian Injuries;” (2) select the proper date
range (03/17/2023-3/17/2023); (3) under “Area,” select “West Bank”; and (4) under“Perpetrator,” select “Israeli civilian settler.”
28 Tzvi Joffre, ‘He’s like Iron Man’: Friends describe David Stern as educator,
hero, Jerusalem Post ((Mar. 20, 2023), https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article734897; see also Michael Wolfowitz and Esther Salama, Returning to the Wild
West: Jewish Violence, Social Reaction, Self Help and Social Control, 62 INT.
ANNALS OF CRIM. 284 (2024).
30

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

108.

Page 31 of 68 PageID 31

This incident is represented by OCHA as Israeli violence. Indeed,

OCHA alleges that seven Palestinians were murdered by “extremist settlers” inthe West Bank from January 1, 2023, to October 7, 2023.29
109.

Among the supposed victims of “settler violence” are the following

individuals: Abd al-Karim Badi’a Abd al-Karim Sheikh, who was shot by the IDF
while trying to infiltrate a farm near the Israeli town of Karnei Shomron while
armed with knives and explosives;30 Tareq Odeh Yusef M’aali, who was shot deadby an Israeli civilian after breaking into his farm and attempting to stab him;31
and Muhannad Falah Abdallah Shihadah, who was shot dead after opening fireand killing four Israeli civilians, including two minors, outside a hummus
restaurant near the town of Eli.32 These examples underscore the unreliability—and genuinely bad faith nature—of such reports by OCHA and similarorganizations of “settler violence.”110.

As a result of OCHA’s inherent anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bias, thedata on OCHA’s website is grossly incomplete and inaccurate—unbefitting of adata set supposedly relied upon by the United States Government when imposing
and implementing its sanctions regime.

29 Data on Casualties, supra note 26. To arrive at this result, (1) select“Palestinian Fatalities;” (2) select the proper date range (01/01/2023-10/07/2023);(3) under “Area,” select “West Bank”; and (4) under “Perpetrator,” select “Israeli
civilian settler.”
30 Emanuel Fabian, Palestinian shot dead after allegedly entering West Bank farmwith knives, IEDs, TIMES OF ISRAEL (Mar. 10, 2023), https://bit.ly/4fBGMvx.
31 Emanuel Fabian, Palestinian shot dead in alleged stabbing attempt at WestBank outpost — IDF, TIMES OF ISRAEL (Jan. 21, 2023), https://bit.ly/4db1Jfm.
32 Ammar Awad, Palestinian gunmen kill four Israelis in West Bank, REUTERS(June 21, 2023), https://bit.ly/3YwTrd4.
31

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

111.

The

Administration’s

reliance

on

Page 32 of 68 PageID 32

inherently

dishonestandantisemitic data is not novel. Repeatedly, the Administration has parroted
disproven casualty figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, despite the fact that
this agency is controlled by the terrorist group Hamas.33 Legislation was passed
to halt the Administration from citing such false numbers.34
112.

Nevertheless, Defendants have chosen to rely on OCHA as a source

to the exclusion of reputable and accurate Israeli and other sources.
113.

The blatant inaccuracies of OCHA and similar anti-Jewish

organizations has been widely documented.35 Yet, upon information and belief,
Defendants failed to engage in any form of due diligence, making no effort either
to substantiate OCHA’s allegations whatsoever or to properly interpret OCHA’s
data in the context of the definitions provided.
114.

In short, Defendants elect to focus solely on rare Israeli extremist

settler violence, based upon hearsay from extremely biased sources, while ignoring
pervasive, chronic, and brutal terror attacks perpetrated by Palestinians.

33 See, e.g., Steven Nelson, Biden says Israel killed ‘too many’ civilians as hewarns Netanyahu not to quash Hamas in Rafah without new plan, N.Y. POST
(Feb. 12, 2024), https://nypost.com/2024/02/12/news/biden-israel-killed-too-manygazans-netanyahu-must-not-squash-hamas-in-rafah-without-new-plan/.
34 U.S. Legislators Bar State Department From Citing Gaza Health Ministry
Fatality Statistics, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES (June 28, 2024),
https://bit.ly/4dtSWF0.
35 See, e.g., Regavim, Settler Violence: The Making of a Modern Blood Libel,
YOUTUBE (Jan. 30, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI3vNEyJnNM; seealso supra note 25, Core Bias in the UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs.
32Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 33 of 68 PageID 33

115. Indeed, for some time, the West Bank has been the location of largescale, violent attacks by Palestinians against Jewish civilians and Israeli security
forces.
116.

In stark contrast to the undocumented “Israeli extremist settler

violence,” there is well-documented evidence of an unprecedented increase inPalestinian terrorism, both in the West Bank and in Israel proper:
a. In January 2024, there were approximately nineteen terror attacks
against Israelis in the West Bank alone (14 shootings, two stabbings,
and three automobile-ram attacks). In addition, there were 337 rockthrowing occurrences and 79 recorded Molotov cocktail incidents.
b. In December 2023, there were approximately twenty-seven terror
attacks against Israelis in the West Bank alone (19 shootings, fivestabbings and three automobile-ram attacks), resulting in 26
individuals injured. In addition, there were 84 recorded Molotov
cocktail incidents.
c. In November 2023, there were approximately twenty-seven terror
attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in the West Bank alone (25shootings, four stabbings, and 1 automobile-ram attack), resulting in
18 injured and seven fatalities. In addition, there were 84 recorded
Molotov cocktail incidents.36

36 The above statistics are taken from the Israeli Security Agency (“ISA”), better

known as the Sherut haBitaẖon haKlali, or Shabak, or Shin Bet. For
documentation of the above statistics, please see the following (in Hebrew):
Monthly Terror Attack Report, ISRAELI SECURITY AGENCY (January 2024),
https://shabak.gov.il/media/arjj514v/‫ינואר‬-2024-‫דוח‬.pdf; Monthly Terror Attack
33

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 34 of 68 PageID 34

117. The problem of Palestinian terrorism is not limited to the West Bank.
According to Rescuers Without Borders, a volunteer Israeli medical first responder
organization, there were 7,386 such attacks in 2022 across Israel, resulting in 31
murdered and 734 wounded. This figure is underinclusive, as it includes only
events that required medical response teams—such as shootings, throwing
Molotov cocktails, stabbings, and the like—but not property crimes or attemptedattacks that did not require medical response teams.

118. Furthermore, prior to the devastating attacks of October 7, 2023,
Rescuers Without Borders reported 3,640 attacks in the first half of 2023 alone,
resulting in 28 murdered and 362 wounded.
119.

Using a narrower definition of terrorist attack, the Israeli security

service ISA listed 1,032 attempted terror attacks in 2023 and 414 successful
attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem, besides the deadly October 7 massacre.
These attempts include 869 shooting attacks, 121 bombings, 21 stabbings, as wellas kidnappings, suicide bombings and ramming attacks. According to the ISA, 43
Israelis were killed and 224 wounded in these attacks.

120. The months following October 7 have shown little improvement in
Palestinian violence against Jewish civilians and Israeli security forces.
121.

Instead, the number of Palestinian terror attacks has only risen.

Palestinians carried out 515 terror attacks in the West Bank and Israel proper inJanuary 2024, 475 terror attacks in February, 493 attacks in March, and 513

Report, ISRAELI SECURITY AGENCY (November
https://shabak.gov.il/media/rdjinpdh/‫דצמבר‬-‫עברית‬.pdf.
34&

December2023),

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 35 of 68 PageID 35

attacks in April. None of the terrorists involved in these attacks were sanctionedby the United States, despite the widespread Palestinian violence against Jews in
the West Bank.

122. Notably, Israeli security forces reported 16 major terror attacks—
involving either the use of firepower, knives, automobile-ram attacks or bombs –in the West Bank in January 2024 alone, while security forces foiled 139 attempted
terror attacks.

123. In February 2024, Palestinians carried out 21 major terror attacks in
the West Bank, while security forces foiled 102 attempted terror attacks.

124. In March 2024, Palestinians carried out 28 major terror attacks in
the West Bank, while security forces foiled 89 attempted terror attacks.

125. These attacks are unspeakably gruesome and inhumane, though
they receive little to no reprimand from the Administration.

126. For instance, in February 2023, Elan Ganeles, a 26-year-old U.S.
citizen visited Israel to attend a friend’s wedding. Mr. Ganeles was driving on a
public highway in the Jordan Valley on February 27, 2023, when a Palestinian
terrorist cell, lying in ambush for vehicles bearing civilian Israeli license plates,
opened fire, killing Ganeles and wounding his friend in the passenger seat. The
perpetrators shot two more vehicles before fleeing.

127. Less than a month later, on March 19, 2023, a Palestinian gunman
shot American-Israeli David Stern in the head as he drove with his wife on a WestBank road near Huwara. A former U.S. Marine, Mr. Stern was able to return fire35

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 36 of 68 PageID 36

despite his injuries, warding off the Palestinian terrorist, who was eventually
captured. Mr. Stern and his wife thankfully survived. Despite being identified, Mr.
Stern’s attacker has not been sanctioned.

128. These acts of Palestinian violence, including both organized terrorist
attacks and hate crimes of opportunity, continue unabated.

129. More specifically, since October 7, 2023, more than 20 Israelis havebeen murdered in Palestinian terrorist attacks in the West Bank.

130. For instance, in February 2024, three Palestinian gunmen opened
fire at Israelis waiting at a checkpoint between Jerusalem and the city of Ma’ale
Adumim in Judea. One Israeli was killed, and eleven other Israelis were wounded,
including a pregnant woman, who was listed in serious condition.

131. That same month, Yitzhak Zeiger, a 57-year-old father of three, and16-year-old Uria Hartum, were slain at a gas station while filling their tank withgas near the city of Eli. The gunman was a Palestinian Authority policeman.

132. In April 2024, 14-year-old shepherd Benjamin Achimeir was killed
by Palestinian terrorists while tending to his flock of sheep near the city of
Hebron.37

133. In June 2024, Amnon Mukhtar, a 67-year-old Jewish resident of theIsraeli city of Petah Tikvah, was shot in his car in Qalqilya while buying
vegetables. After shooting him, local Palestinians then burned him alive in his car.

37 I24News, Indictment Filed Against ISIS-Affiliated Terrorist Who Murdered 14-

year-old Shepherd, (June 20, 2024), https://bit.ly/3WOJiY6.
36

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

134.

Page 37 of 68 PageID 37

At the same time, Palestinians have engaged in many acts of arson

and property destruction directed at Jews in the West Bank.
135.

Indeed, over the past several months, “firefighters have battled wellover 1,000 fires in Judea and Samaria, many of them adjacent to Jewish towns
and Israeli army bases, almost all of them certainly caused by arson.”38
136.

West Bank terrorism against Jews is not a sporadic or solely

grassroots phenomenon. According to a report released by Palestinian Media
Watch on January 31, 2024, the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority andits Fatah ruling party are deeply involved in terror. Indeed, despite thePalestinian Authority’s systematic campaign of terrorism—which includes paying
the families of “martyrs” under its infamous “Pay for Slay” program—it is not
subject to United States sanctions but is treated as a moderate partner for peacein the pursuit of a “two state solution.”39
137.

By Fatah’s own admission, Fatah members and the PA’s security

forces carried out more than 1,500 terror attacks against Israelis in 2023. The
Fatah movement recently released a video proudly showing 24 “martyrs” from its
ranks killed while carrying out attacks against Israel. For example, Fatah hailed
Ashraf Muhammad Amin Ibrahim, a Palestinian Authority military intelligence
officer, killed after firing shots at Israeli soldiers in Jenin on May 29, 2023.

38 David Weinberg, Judea and Samaria are literally on fire, ISRAEL HAYOM (July8, 2024), https://bit.ly/4fB1QCk.
39 See Taylor Force Act, 22 U.S.C. §2378c–1. The goal of the Taylor Force Act is tostop American economic aid to the Palestinian Authority until the PA ceases
paying stipends through the “Palestinian Authority Martyr’s Fund” to individuals
who commit acts of terrorism and to the families of deceased terrorists.
37

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 38 of 68 PageID 38

138. In contrast to this reality—an unmitigated wave of Palestinian
violence explicitly encouraged by the Palestinian Authority—the United States
Security Coordinator (USSC) to Israel and the Palestinian Authority regularly
provides briefings and reports about “settler violence” to American policymakers.
The reports of settler violence suggest a phenomenon that is a mere fraction ofPalestinian violence, according to all measures—frequency of incidents, type ofincidents, brutality, and scope.

139. Even when accounting for the lower volume and intensity of such
incidents, the reports of settler violence are questionable. For instance, the USSC
reports do not correspond with data from Israeli law enforcement. At the sametime, there is no evidence of any independent fact-finding or analysis by the USSC
or any other U.S. actor or independent investigator; instead, the USSC claims
appear to echo statements and figures from highly politicized and biased
organizations such as OCHA, discussed previously, and the far-left Israeli NGO
B’Tselem.40
140.

An examination of OCHA’s and B’Tselem’s reports reveals that there

was not a consistent fact-finding methodology behind the data presented.
Moreover, it shows several deceptive methods for inflating the data. These reports
are tendentious, inaccurate, and inflammatory and should not form the basis of
United States policy.

40 See, e.g., Aryeh Green, Biden/Blinken’s Travesty of Common Sense andForeign Policy, TIMES OF ISRAEL (Feb. 6, 2024), https://bit.ly/4cdpIJx.
38

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

141.

Page 39 of 68 PageID 39

Other reports appear to be little more than fabrications. In November

2022, for instance, Premiere Urgence Internationale reported “Israeli settlers
committed at least 1,049 attacks against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank
between January and September 2022.”41 No source or methodology is provided.
142.

Meanwhile, Yesh Din, a pro-Palestinian political organization

located in Israel, reported 160 “cases of settler violence or their property” fromJanuary 2023 to September 2023, the source apparently being police complaints
filed at the urging of Yesh Din.42 After investigation, nearly all the complaints
were closed without charges being filed in court. The differing numbers do notappear reconcilable.
143.

In a Knesset hearing in March 2024, the chief of Israeli police for

Judea and Samaria district, Avishai Mualem, reported that half the complaints ofsettler violence against Palestinians since the beginning of the Gaza War have
proven to be false. According to Mr. Mualem, many of these complaints are
ideologically motivated by far-left groups that seek to tar Israeli nationals living
in Judea and Samaria as extremists.
144.

Additionally, Mr. Mualem stated that there had been a decrease innationalist violence against Palestinians in comparison with the previous year, afact that he attributed to increased law enforcement measures.

41 In West Bank – Violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians is rising at a

straggering[sic] rate, PREMIERE URGENCE INTERNATIONALE (Nov. 4, 2022),
https://bit.ly/3LU1Xvb.
42 Data Sheet, December 2023: Law Enforcement on Israeli Civilians in the WestBank (Settler violence) 2005-2023, YESH DIN (Jan. 21, 2024),
https://bit.ly/4dtbdSQ.
39

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 40 of 68 PageID 40

D. Implementation of EO 14115
145.

Sanctions under Section 1 of EO 14115 are implemented by

Defendant OFAC.
146.

On the same day that EO 14115 was issued, OFAC announced thatit had placed four Israeli individuals on the SDN List: (1) David Chai Chasdai; (2)Yinon Levi; (3) Einan Tanjil; and (4) Shalom Zicherman.43
147.

Immediately following the publication of the sanctions against thefour individuals, two Israeli banks froze the bank accounts of two of theindividuals. Bank Leumi froze two accounts associated with Mr. Levi, and Bank
HaDoar froze an account associated with Mr. Chasdai. The accounts were frozen
without any prior notice to the blocked individuals.
148.

On March 14, 2024, OFAC announced that it placed three additional

individuals on the SDN List: (1) Zvi Bar Yosef; (2) Nerya Ben Pazi; and (3) Moshe
Sharvit. OFAC also placed two entities that are associated with those individuals
on the SDN List: (1) Moshe’s Farm and (2) Zvi’s Farm.44
149.

On March 26, 2024, in response to an inquiry from Daniel

Hahiashvili, Israel’s Supervisor of Banks, concerning the interpretation and scopeof EO 14115, Defendant Bradley T. Smith responded by letter clarifying that

43 Recent Action, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury,

Issuance of Executive Order Imposing Certain Sanctions on Persons
Undermining Peace, Security, and Stability in the West Bank; West Bankrelated Designations (Feb. 1, 2024), https://ofac.treasury.gov/recentactions/20240201.
44 Recent Action, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury,
West Bank-related Designations; Russia-related Designation; Counter Narcotics
Designation and Designations Updates; Transnational Criminal Organizations
Designation Update (Mar. 14, 2024), https://ofac.treasury.gov/recentactions/20240314.
40

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 41 of 68 PageID 41

Israeli banks can process transactions forindividuals designated under E.O. 14115 that are
ordinarily incident and necessary to basic humanneeds or subsistence without exposure to OFAC
sanctions risk, provided these transactions do not
involve the U.S. financial system or U.S. persons.45
150.

On May 23, 2024, attorneys representing individuals and entities

who engage in or intend to engage in political and charitable activities related to
Judea and Samaria contacted OFAC seeking clarification on EO 14115 (“May 23
Letter”). See Exhibit C at 3-4. More specifically, the attorneys sought to ascertain,inter alia: (1) whether engaging in speech and protests opposing the two-statesolution or in support of a Jewish presence in the West Bank was sanctionable;(2) whether residing in the West Bank or supporting the growth of the Jewish
communities there was sanctionable; (3) whether donating to a host of charitablecauses in the West Bank was sanctionable; (4) whether engaging in self-defense
or asserting one’s title to land against Palestinian trespassers was sanctionable;(5) whether engaging in social media activity opposing the two-state solution or
supporting Jewish sovereignty over the West Bank was sanctionable; and (6)whether advocating or lobbying for either position was sanctionable.
151.

On June 5, 2024, OFAC responded, asserting that OFAC “does not

administer comprehensive sanctions against the West Bank” and that the “WestBank is not subject to broad, jurisdiction-based sanctions at this time, meaningthat not all activity involving the West Bank, or persons located in the West Bank,
are necessarily prohibited.” See Exhibit D (hereafter, the “June 5 Letter”). It thenprovided a general definition of EO 14115 before directing the attorneys to use

45 See Exhibit B at 1.

41

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 42 of 68 PageID 42

OFAC’s Sanctions List Search tool and to visit the U.S. Department of Treasury’s
website.
152.

On June 14, 2024, OFAC announced sanctions on Regavim’s activist

initiative, Tzav 9, pursuant to section 1(a)(i)(A) of EO 14115.46
153.

In response to the announcement, Tzav 9 released a statement to thepress over Whatsapp describing its membership and mission:More than 15,000 citizens from across the Israeli
political spectrum are members of the Tzav 9community. Thousands of citizens, among themfamilies whose loved ones were murdered or are still
being held captive by Hamas, participated in thepeaceful blockades organized by Tzav 9. Public
opinion polls indicate that 79% of the Israeli public
supports Tzav 9’s objective. In dozens of peacefulcivil demonstrations, closely modeled on American
civil society protests that President Biden expressly
defended as legitimate expressions protected by theFirst Amendment, participants voiced theirobjection to sustaining and enriching an enemy that
continues to take pride in the torture, rape andmurder of Israelis and continues to hold Israeli andAmerican citizens hostage and to use the civilian
population of Gaza as a human shield.47
154.

Tzav 9 includes among its membership families of victims taken

hostage on October 7, as well as bereaved relatives of soldiers.48

46 Press Statement, Office of the Spokesperson, U.S. Dep’t of State, Sanctioning

Violent Palestinian Group in the West Bank (June 6, 2024),
https://www.state.gov/sanctioning-violent-palestinian-group-in-the-west-bank/.
47 The announcement originally appeared in Hebrew, and portions have beentranslated here into English. Please see the following news sources for selections
from the announcement: Elisha Ben Kimon & Ilana Koriel,, ‫תקיפת המשאיות מאבדת‬‫לא מעבר‬, ‫חוסמים‬: "‫בתנועה שמאחורי ההפגנות מתרצים‬, ‫"שליטה‬, YNETNEWS (May 15, 2024),
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/bkygqkzx0; Chaim Golditch, ‫לאחר כמה תקריות‬‫ מקפיא את פעילותו נגד שיירות הסיוע לעזה‬9 ‫ארגון צו‬: ‫אלימות‬, Kan News (May 16, 2024),
https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/749847/.
48 Bar Peleg & Eden Solomon, 'Spill It Onto the Road': How Right-wing Israeli
Activists Are Organizing to Block Aid Trucks to Gaza, HAARETZ (May 20, 2024),
https://bit.ly/3LVNZJg.
42

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

155.

Page 43 of 68 PageID 43

Tzav 9 applauded instances when humanitarian aid reached Gazan

civilians but noted that the majority of aid did not.
156.

It acknowledged one violent incident on May 13, 2024, that occurredat an Israeli checkpoint near Tarkumiya. According to Tzav 9: “This incident wasorganized by others who took issue with Tzav 9’s peaceful civil disobedience andsought to instigate aggressive and even violent actions.”
157.

Israeli news similarly reported that a separate group called “Lo

Nishkach” was responsible for the incident.49
158.

Nonetheless, Tzav 9 condemned the incident and took steps toprevent such an occurrence from happening again:
Tzav 9’s leadership immediately condemned thisincident and disavowed all connection between theorganization and the perpetrators of the violence. In
order to prevent a recurrence of the “hijacking” oftheir legitimate civil protest, Tzav 9 announced that
it was temporarily suspending operations in order toregroup in a manner that would prevent violent
outsiders from harming the nature and objectives towhich the movement is committed. At the sametime, the Regavim Movement notified the leadershipof Tzav 9 that it would no longer be associated withany actions taken to block supply trucks, and would
limit its efforts to public diplomacy and politicalactivism to block supplies to Hamas.
159.

Despite Tzav 9’s actions to address the incident, the Biden

Administration, upon information and belief, swiftly sanctioned the group without
further investigating the group or Regavim.

49 Id.

43

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

160.

Page 44 of 68 PageID 44

Tzav’s announcement concluded by noting the Regavim Movement’s

deep commitment “to democratic principles” and to “peaceful protest.” It
concluded,
We also believe that Israeli citizens have the rightto speak out against the situation that has been
imposed by the Biden Administration on thegovernment of Israel, in which the rule of aninternationally sanctioned terrorist organization
sworn to the eradication of every Jew and theerasure of western values is being propped up by thevictims, against their will.
161.

On June 17, 2024, the same attorneys who authored the May 23

Letter contacted OFAC again, this time as representatives of Regavim, Mr.
Deutsch, current and future donors to Regavim, and entities that “have interacted
with, supported, and been addressed by Regavim and its leaders.” See Exhibit E(hereafter, the “June 17 Letter”). The attorneys explained Regavim’s nonviolent
activism and requested clarification regarding the EO.
162.

More specifically, the June 17 Letter detailed how Regavim’s Tzav 9

initiative has engaged in protest activities that “are completely nonviolent, andprecisely the kind of public advocacy, and civil disobedience, of which President
Biden, and members of his administration, have explicitly approved.” Exhibit E
at 1.
163.

The June 17 Letter noted that such sanctions were put into place

despite the following circumstances:[Tzav 9’s] activities are exclusively speech and civil
disobedience, which President Biden has declared isprotected First Amendment activity; Hamas is,
indisputably, capturing aid sent into Gaza; Thetransfer of any resources to Hamas is a federal crimeand directly contrary to the foreign policy interests
44

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 45 of 68 PageID 45

of the United States; Tsav[sic] 9 has explicitly andpublicly condemned any violence in connection withthe delivery of aid to Gaza, and has taken carefuland effective steps to ensure that its activities arecompletely peaceful; Transfer to Hamas, or capture
by Hamas, of aid designated for Gaza has occurred
repeatedly, as acknowledged by the State
Department itself, former US Ambassador David
Satterfield, the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency, and various Palestinian media and civic andpolitical organizations including Fatah, as well as by
the Israeli government and the Israel Defense
Forces.50
164.

Although officials of Regavim were in regular contact with U.S.

officials, the U.S. Government did not contact anyone from Regavim before theissuance of the sanctions against Tzav 9.
165.

The attorneys then asked for clarification regarding (1) whether

American citizens may donate to Regavim and whether those funds may bedesignated for Tzav 9; (2) whether an American citizen may serve as an officer ofRegavim; and (3) whether American citizens can legally invite members ofRegavim or Tzav 9 to their institutions in the United States to speak and whether
American citizens may cover the costs of those speakers or pay them honoraria.
Exhibit E at 2.
166.

OFAC responded on July 3, 2024, asserting that OFAC “does not

administer comprehensive sanctions against the West Bank” and that “[t]he WestBank is not subject to broad, jurisdiction-based sanctions at this time, meaningthat not all activity involving the West Bank, or persons located in the West Bank,
are necessarily prohibited.” See Exhibit F at 1-2.

50 Exhibit E at 1-2.

45

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

167.

Page 46 of 68 PageID 46

OFAC then directed the attorneys for Regavim and others to visit

OFAC’s website and provided general information regarding the implementationof U.S. sanctions. OFAC concluded by asserting that all U.S. persons must comply
with OFAC regulations. Id. at 2.
168.

On July 11, 2024, OFAC placed additional individuals and entities

on the SDN List, including Reut Ben Chaim (wife of Plaintiff Yosef Ben Chaim),
Isaschar Manne, Aviad Shlomo Sarid, as well as several Israeli charities andfarms.51
E. Effects of EO 14115 on Plaintiffs
i. Isley169.

As a direct and proximate result of EO 14115, Plaintiff Isley cannot

freely exercise his First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise ofreligion. Instead, Mr. Isley fears official condemnation of his religious beliefs by
his own government.
170.

To carry out his religious mission, Mr. Isley invites Israeli Jews from

Judea and Samaria to events in the United States and financially supports Jewish
efforts to construct a new Jewish Temple. A core tenet of Mr. Isley’s faith is
supporting the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland by teaching Christians
about Israel.
171.

Due to EO 14115 and its implementation, however, Mr. Isley isunable to invite blocked persons or entities to events in the US, nor is he able to51 Recent Action, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury,

West Bank-related Designations; Transnational Criminal Organizations
Designation (July 11, 2024), https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20240711.
46

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 47 of 68 PageID 47

contribute financially to Jews who reside in Judea and Samaria for fear of them
being sanctioned under the EO, given the vast scope of the EO and the wide range
of non-violent conduct it covers.
172.

In particular, Jews from the West Bank that Mr. Isley regularlyinteracts with as part of his organization’s religious mission and faith are those
that, like Plaintiff Ari Abramowitz, live on isolated farms that are more likely to
be targeted by Palestinian terrorism.
173.

Because self-defense against such terrorism has been counted by the

Administration as “settler violence” and sanctionable, Mr. Isley cannot properly
plan for or conduct activities with these Jewish people because they may, at a
moment’s notice, be sanctioned. No amount of due diligence can cure this.
174.

Both the inability of an individual to invite speakers to events in the

United States related to his religious mission and the related uncertainty inorganizing such events are cognizable injuries in the context of unlawful visa
restrictions. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 265 F. Supp. 3d 570, 598(D. Md. 2017), aff'd, 883 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2018), as amended (Feb. 28, 2018), cert.
granted, judgment vacated, 138 S. Ct. 2710, 201 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (2018), and cert.
granted, judgment vacated, 138 S. Ct. 2710, 201 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (2018) (“Evenwithout identifying specific individuals who will definitely be barred from entry
into the United States to attend its events, [plaintiff] has alleged that theProclamation presently constrains their efforts to recruit attendees for their
upcoming meetings and conferences and to secure their arrival in time for the
event.”)

47

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

175.

Page 48 of 68 PageID 48

Since Mr. Isley is unable to bring speakers from the West Bank who

oppose the two-state solution without risking sanctions, he will be unable to fullytransmit his organization’s values to Christians on this important issue. See Statev. Trump, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1152 (D. Haw.), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 878
F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017), rev'd and remanded, 585 U.S. 667, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 201
L. Ed. 2d 775 (2018) (association of Muslims has standing to challenge visa
restrictions because they would make it more difficult to be Muslim).
176.

Mr. Isley also accurately perceives that EO 14115 targets him, as

well as other Christians and Jews who share his religious views, and as a result,
he will not be able to freely associate with those of other faiths who will be warded
off by EO 14115’s imprimatur of government condemnation of his beliefs.
ii. Regavim
144.

As a direct and proximate result of EO 14115, and the sanctions

imposed under it, the donation platform JGive froze Plaintiff Regavim’s online
fundraising site for accepting donations in U.S. dollars. In addition, Regavim has
suffered and will continue to suffer significant economic loss due to the sanctions
against Tzav 9 and the imminently threatened sanctions against Regavim and its
officers, as many potential donors fear that they will be subject to future sanctions
without prior notice should they donate or otherwise support Israeli civil society
organizations that oppose a two-state solution or oppose aid to Hamas and its
allies.
iv. Deutsch

48

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

145.

Page 49 of 68 PageID 49

As a direct and proximate result of EO 14115, Plaintiff Deutsch has

suffered and will continue to suffer actual injury because he is unable to carry out
his duties, both in his capacity as Director General of Regavim and in his
individual capacity. Mr. Deutsch’s right of free expression, guaranteed by the First
Amendment, has been chilled, if not outright barred.
146.

Mr. Deutsch now must expend significant resources in the form of his

own time and finances to continue engaging in the types of speech in which he has
engaged for years.
v. Ben Chaim
146.

As a direct and proximate result of the EO, Mr. Ben Chaim has

suffered and will continue to suffer. Because his wife has been placed on the SDN
List, Mr. Ben Chaim is unable to receive any salary from his wife’s small business.
Mr. Ben Chaim is also unable to support his family of eight because his wife cannot
receive any salary or other payments to her business account or any other account.
Lastly, Mr. Ben Chaim is unable to support his wife—both financially and vis-àvis her political activities—as a direct result of the sanctions.
v. Abramowitz
147.

As a direct and proximate result of the EO, Plaintiff Abramowitz has

suffered and will continue to suffer actual injury, as his ability to finance anddevelop Arugot Farm in the West Bank has been significantly impaired.
148.

Plaintiff Abramowitz is also put in direct fear of death or bodily harm

as result of the Administration’s imposition of sanctions on Jews in the West Bankfor their exercise of self-defense against the massive wave of Palestinian terrorist
49

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 50 of 68 PageID 50

violence. Because the Administration relies on and adopts, without independent
verification, the conclusions of radical, ideological anti-settler groups about violent
incidents in the West Bank, Jews like Mr. Abramowitz who are under constantthreat of violence face a stark choice: refrain from defending themselves if
attacked or face debilitating sanctions.
149.

The Biden administration is aware that its program to impose

sanctions under EO 14115 is, in reality, focused solely on Jews and ignores almost
all violent acts committed by Arab or other Muslim actors.
150.

For example, the Palestinian Authority is a formal legal organizationthat maintains bank accounts susceptible of being sanctioned under EO 14115.
151.

The Palestinian Authority indisputably engages in actions which

threaten the cause of peace in the Middle East—even as the Biden Administration
defines that concept—because of its infamous “Pay for Slay” program.
152.

Yet, upon information and belief, no steps have been taken to

sanction the Palestinian Authority for its “Pay for Slay” program. For that matter,no steps have been taken to sanction any Arab or Muslim individual pursuant toEO 14415.
153.

In an effort to conceal this reality, the Biden Administration

announced on June 6, 2024, that it would exercise the authority conferred by EO
14115 to sanction the Lion’s Den terror group.
154.

But this announcement was nothing more than political theater. In

reality, the action taken by the United States Government sanctioned no one andhad absolutely no tangible or lasting effect on any person, organization, or bankaccount.
50

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

155.

Page 51 of 68 PageID 51

The announcement also cited April 2024 Palestinian media reportsof Lions’ Den fighters targeting Israeli forces with small arms at an Israeli
checkpoint in Nablus.52 However, these reports were never confirmed, the groupnever claimed responsibility for that attack, and it could well have been
perpetrated by Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters.
156.

In contrast to the Administration’s sanctioning of Jewish persons andentities, the sanctioning of Lion’s Den represents the quintessential “smoke andmirrors.”
157.

The Lion’s Den group is, quite obviously, not an incorporated entity.

It maintains no bank account in any financial institution anywhere in the world.
158.

No natural person identified with the Lion’s Den was sanctioned oreven named as part of the sanctions imposed on the Lion’s Den entity itself.
159.

Since June 6, 2024, no person identified or associated with the Lion’s

Den has been the object of sanctions imposed pursuant to EO 14115.
160.

As a result, there has never been any effect or impact of the sanctions

purportedly imposed on the Lion’s Den group pursuant to EO 14115.
161.

The sanctioning of the Lion’s Den was an empty gesture by the Biden

Administration to create the illusion of evenhandedness without sanctioning asingle individual Palestinian terrorist.

52 Press Statement, Office of the Spokesperson, U.S. Dep’t of State, Sanctioning

Violent Palestinian Group in the West Bank (June 6, 2024),
https://www.state.gov/sanctioning-violent-palestinian-group-in-the-west-bank/51

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 52 of 68 PageID 52

CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act,
42 U.S.C. §2000bb et seq.
145.

Plaintiffs repeat all the allegations as alleged above and incorporate

them herein.
146. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §2000bb1(a), prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise ofreligion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless thegovernment can show the burden is the least restrictive means of accomplishing acompelling government interest.
147. EO 14115 substantially burdens the exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion.
148. Plaintiffs Isley, Deutsch, Ben Chaim, and Abramowitz hold sincere
religious beliefs that the Jewish People have a right and obligation to live in Judeaand Samaria. EO 14115 renders sanctionable any activity that threatens peace,stability and security in the “West Bank,” i.e., Judea and Samaria. That vague,
overreaching statement has the direct effect of preventing these Plaintiffs fromadvocating for their religious beliefs.
149. The EO also prevents Mr. Isley from furthering his religious beliefs
by prohibiting contributions to blocked individuals and disallowing blockedindividuals from entering the United States. As a result, they cannot share anddiscuss their religious beliefs regarding Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria.
150. The only interest that the Administration has cited in support of the
EO is its concern that the targeted activity might “undermine the foreign policy
52

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 53 of 68 PageID 53

objectives of the United States,” but this is an insufficiently compelling interest to
justify the imposition of sanctions on Plaintiffs for engaging in First Amendmentprotected speech. The idea that First Amendment-protected speech can besuppressed any time it causes friction with an administration’s foreign policy
objectives was the rationale underlying the Sedition Act of 1798, and this is a viewthat has not “carried the day in the court of history.” N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964).
151. Furthermore, the Administration has not shown that enforcing theEO against Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons is the least restrictive means
to further any alleged compelling interest, even if one exists.
152. As such, EO 14115 and its implementation fail to conform with RFRA
and must not be enforced against Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons.
COUNT II
Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,
U.S. Const. amend. I
153.

Plaintiffs repeat all their allegations as alleged above andincorporate them herein.
154.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const.,
amend. I. Content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny,
which means they will be stricken as unconstitutional as applied to a speaker
unless the government can prove that the restriction is necessary to further acompelling governmental interest. Sable Commc’ns of Cal. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115,
126 (1989).
155.

EO 14115 imposes content-based restrictions on Plaintiffs.
53

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

156.

Page 54 of 68 PageID 54

As alleged above, EO 14115 prevents Plaintiff Isley from exercising

his First Amendment right to hear the views and philosophies of blocked persons
and other like-minded individuals in Israel.
157.

Mr. Isley is also chilled from exercising his free speech rights bymaking charitable contributions that further his protected religious values.
158.

In addition, EO 14115 prevents Plaintiffs Deutsch, Ben Chaim, andAbramowitz from exercising their First Amendment right of free expression.
Plaintiffs Deutsch and Abramowitz, as alleged above, are prevented fromadvocating their views that oppose the two-state solution and advocate for the
Jewish presence and land ownership/control in Judea and Samaria or the “WestBank” for fear that such speech and conduct will subject them to the quasicriminal sanctions regime of EO 14115. Plaintiff Ben Chaim can no longer support
his wife’s advocacy of Israel and, in particular, her peaceful protests against theprovision of “humanitarian” aid to Hamas and its allies.
159.

Inasmuch as the EO and its implementation contravene the First

Amendment free speech guarantee, it is unconstitutional and invalid because it is
not necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.
160.

There is no compelling governmental interest to regulate orotherwise restrict Plaintiffs’ right of free expression. Preventing Plaintiffs fromexercising First Amendment rights is not necessary to achieve the United States
Government’s alleged foreign policy goals and utterly fails to accomplish what
Defendants set out to do in issuing and implementing EO 14115.

54Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

161.

Page 55 of 68 PageID 55

Because the EO’s restrictions on Plaintiffs’ speech and expression are

not necessary to further a compelling governmental interest, it must not be
enforced against Plaintiffs.
162.

Furthermore, the First Amendment prohibits the U.S. Government

from enacting laws that are overbroad. "Because First Amendment freedoms needbreathing space to survive,” the U.S. Government “may regulate in the area onlywith narrow specificity." Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 522 (1972).
163.

“If the overbreadth is ‘substantial,’ the law may not be enforced

against anyone, including the party before the court, until it is narrowed to reach
only unprotected activity, whether by legislative action or by judicial construction
or partial invalidation.” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, 472 U.S. 491, 503-04, 105 S.
Ct. 2794, 2802 (1985).
164.

The Supreme Court “provide[s] this expansive remedy out of concernthat the threat of enforcement of an overbroad law may deter or ‘chill’
constitutionally protected speech--especially when the overbroad statute imposes
criminal sanctions.” Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 119 (2003).
165.

Many similarly situated as Plaintiffs, “rather than undertake theconsiderable burden (and sometimes risk) of vindicating their rights through caseby-case litigation, will choose simply to abstain from protected speech—harming
not only themselves but society as a whole, which is deprived of an uninhibited
marketplace of ideas.” Id. (internal citations removed).
166.

Because EO 14115 chills the protected speech and expression of

Plaintiffs, it is unconstitutional and must not be enforced against Plaintiffs.

55

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 56 of 68 PageID 56

COUNT III
Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights to Free Exercise of
Religion,
U.S. Const. amend. I
167.

Plaintiffs repeat all their allegations as alleged above andincorporate them herein.
168.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the rightof American citizens to believe and exercise their religious beliefs without
targeting or undue burdening by the federal government.
169.

Mr. Isley’s free exercise of his sincerely held beliefs motivating hismonetary and other support is burdened because he is prevented fromcontributing to blocked persons and/or having blocked persons enter the UnitedStates to discuss and advocate these religious ideas. Moreover, Mr. Isley isprevented from making religious contributions to charities that further his
religious philosophy of increasing the Jewish population in Judea and Samaria orthe “West Bank.” As a result of EO 14115, Mr. Isley can no longer make any
contributions that may be perceived as threatening the peace, stability, or securityof Judea and Samaria for fear that the money will ultimately be frozen under EO
14115. These charities serve as part and parcel of Mr. Isley’s core religious beliefs
and Defendants have improperly interfered with those beliefs. Isley’s religious
exercise is burdened in the territory of Texas, where he wishes to host persons
potentially under sanction.
170.

Plaintiffs Deutsch, Ben Chaim, and Abramowitz, as U.S. Citizens,are precluded from engaging in actions to advance their fundamental religious
belief that the Land of Israel, especially Judea and Samaria, has been promised

56

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 57 of 68 PageID 57

by God to the Jewish People in perpetuity and that the Jewish People have areligious right and obligation to return to, settle, and develop Judea and Samaria.
EO 14115 prescribes quasi-criminal sanctions on Plaintiffs Deutsch andAbramowitz because of their deeply rooted religious convictions.
171.

Because of their deeply rooted religious convictions, Plaintiffs

Deutsch and Abramowitz are prohibited from working with American partners,
such as Mr. Isley, to advance Jewish interests in a nonviolent manner in Judeaand Samaria. Similarly, Plaintiff Ben Chaim is prevented from supporting his
wife’s sincere religious belief that Israel has a Jewish-religious right to defend
itself from existential threats such as Hamas.
172.

The EO cannot be considered to impose “generally applicable”

burdens on religious practice because it vests complete discretion in the
Secretaries of State and Treasury to determine what constitutes a sanctionableviolation. “The creation of a formal mechanism for granting exceptions renders apolicy not generally applicable, regardless of whether any exceptions have been
given, because it ‘invite[s]’ the government to decide which reasons for notcomplying with the policy are worthy of solicitude—here, at the [Secretaries’] ‘sole
discretion.’” Fulton v. City of Phila., 593 U.S. 522, 537 (2021). The intent
underlying EO 14115 is illuminated by the ways in which that discretion has been
exercised so far.
173.

EO 14115 was intended to target a particular subset of religious

belief; namely, to target Jewish individuals and those who hold to the religious
belief that Jews have a right to settle in Judea and Samaria.

57

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

174.

Page 58 of 68 PageID 58

In both public and private statements, the drafters of the EO haveevinced religious animus against Jews and those holding to religious beliefs
concerning the land. During the drafting of the EO, the drafters evinced religious
animus by relying exclusively on anti-Jewish sources of evidence.
175.

Since its promulgation, the Secretaries of State and Treasury haveexercised their discretion by applying EO 14115 disparately to Jews and thoseholding religious beliefs concerning the land.
176.

EO 14115 therefore violates the Free Exercise Clause by creating aformal mechanism by which the Secretary is directed to evaluate a person’s
religious beliefs and decide which beliefs are conducive to “peace” (and therefore
worthy of an exception) and which are not (and therefore worthy of punishment).
177.

Consequently,

the

EO,

both

facially

andasapplied,isunconstitutional as it improperly interferes with Plaintiffs’ right to exercise theirreligious beliefs.
COUNT IV
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights to Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. V
178. Plaintiffs Deutsch, Ben Chaim, and Abramowitz repeat all their
allegations as alleged above and incorporate them herein.
179. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause includes an equal
protection component. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 774 (2013) (“Theliberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it
the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.”).

58

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 59 of 68 PageID 59

180. Government action that implicates an equal protection right will be
subject to strict scrutiny if the action targets a suspect class (like race or alienage)or burdens the exercise of a fundamental right.
181. EO 14115 is subject to strict scrutiny because the creation, purpose,and implementation of the EO is targeted at the Jewish People and their religious
beliefs. Although Defendants avoided making express references to race or religion
in the EO, the purpose and motivation behind EO 14115 is clear. The Background
Press Call, supra paragraph 74, discusses only actions by the Jewish community
in the West Bank. It is clear that the content and structure of the EO is aimed at
Jewish individuals and entities, not Palestinians or persons of any other national
origin, religion, or ethnicity. Moreover, the only individuals who have been placedon the EO’s sanction list are Jews, even though there are thousands ofPalestinians who have engaged in terrorist attacks on Jewish civilians thatunquestionably threaten the “peace, security, or stability of the West Bank.” EO,§1(a)(i)(A).
182. FinCEN’s “Alert on Israeli Extremist Settler Violence Against
Palestinians in the West Bank” does not even attempt to conceal the fact that theEO and its implementation is aimed at the Jewish people and only the Jewish
people. The Alert addresses only “Israeli” individuals and entities with noreference to any other race. In instructing financial institutions concerning the
EO’s sanction regime, FinCEN listed potential “red flag indicators” that can assista financial institution to identify “suspicious activity related to the financing of
Israeli extremist settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank”:

59Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 60 of 68 PageID 60(a) Payments to any organizations or groups,
including nonprofit organizations . . . linked to
Israeli violent extremist groups in the West Bank.
(b) Information included in a transaction between
customers, such as references in the memo field, thatindicate support for Israeli violent extremist groups
or campaigns.
(c) Transactions with no apparent economic,
business, or lawful purpose associated with a rapid
movement of funds and linked to NPOs active insupporting violent extremist Israeli settlers in theWest Bank, particularly if the NPO has advocatedfor, or solicited donations on social media in supportof, Israeli violent extremist groups or campaigns.
(emphasis added)53
183. In

short,

despitetheEO’sfacially

neutrallanguage,theAdministration has made clear by its words and enforcement actions that only
Jewish people are at risk at being sanctioned under EO 14115.
184. The EO constitutes a denial of Equal Protection of the laws because
it threatens to sanction Jewish individuals who act in self-defense.
185. Jewish

Americancitizens,

such

as

Plaintiffs

DeutschandAbramowitz, are at significant risk of terrorist violence. Indeed, they both havebeen subject to numerous instances of unprovoked violence by neighboring
Palestinians. The EO threatens them with life-shattering sanctions if they use
force in self-defense, and such acts are falsely dubbed “settler violence” by the antiJewish groups that report to the U.N., as the Defendants adopt OCHA reports
without independent verification. Yet no such penalties are imposed on nonJewish U.S. citizens in the West Bank who act in self-defense.

53 FINCEN ALERT ON ISRAELI EXTREMIST SETTLER VIOLENCE, supra note 17.

60

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 61 of 68 PageID 61

186. In addition, under Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), a prima
facie race-neutral law “administered by public authority with an evil eye and an
unequal hand” infringes upon the right to equal protection. Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356, 373–74 (1886). The EO has the effect of treating Israeli officials
enforcing Israeli property law and land use law against Palestinians as wrongful;it views Jews defending their property and/or their lives against Palestinian
theft/terrorism as wrongful; and it views Jewish assertion and public promotion ofproperty rights within the West Bank as wrongful.
187. Because the EO is targeted against Jews, it is subject to strict
scrutiny, and it is the government’s burden to prove that the EO is necessary tofurther a compelling governmental interest. Failing that, the EO must be vacatedunder the Fifth Amendment.
188. The EO does not withstand strict scrutiny because there was nocompelling governmental interest to declare a national emergency or to impose asanctions regime due to the alleged activities of a miniscule sector of an alreadysmall population in a geographically limited area under legitimate and effective
control by the Israeli government. Even assuming the stability of Judea andSamaria is a compelling governmental interest, the issuance of the EO was notnecessary to further that interest (and it is certainly not narrowly tailored toinfringe upon no more protected activity than is necessary). This is evident, firstand foremost (and among other factors), from the fact that no Palestinian
terrorists or officials have been considered for placement on the SDN list.

61

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 62 of 68 PageID 62

COUNT V
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights to Due Process
U.S. Const. amend. V
189.

Plaintiffs Deutsch, Ben Chaim, and Abramowitz repeat all their

allegations as alleged above and incorporate them herein.
190.

The EO Notice allows for sanctions when anyone in any manner(“directly or indirectly”) harms “peace, security, or stability in the West Bank.” The
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to define these key terms.
191.

The Fifth Amendment requires that a law give a person of ordinary

intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited.
192.

The EO violates the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of fair noticebecause it does not sufficiently describe what conduct constitutes sanctionable
activity.
193.

The EO is also unconstitutionally overbroad because it “(1) prohibits

a substantial amount of constitutionally protected freedoms, when judged inrelation to the regulation’s ‘plainly legitimate sweep’ . . . and (2) is not susceptible
to a limiting construction that avoids constitutional problems.” McClelland v. Katy
Indep. Sch. Dist., 63 F.4th 996, 1012 (5th Cir. 2023).
194.

The EO violates the Due Process Clause because it prohibits

Plaintiffs and others similarly situated from exercising their constitutionallyprotected speech rights in support of the rights of Jewish settlers residing in theWest Bank, and there is no way to read the key terms “peace, security, or stability”
narrowly to avoid this effect.

62

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

195.

Page 63 of 68 PageID 63

Further, the EO is unconstitutionally vague because it “(1) fails toprovide those targeted by the statute a reasonable opportunity to know what
conduct is prohibited, or (2) is so indefinite that it allows arbitrary anddiscriminatory enforcement.” McClelland., 63 F.4th at 1013.
196.

The EO is so vague that regulated parties cannot possibly guess whattypes of speech are affected, as evidenced by the multiple requests for clarificationthat have already been received by OFAC. This lack of precision also vests those
responsible for enforcing the EO with impermissible discretion to act in anarbitrary and discriminatory manner, discretion which they have so far wielded tosanction exclusively Jewish individuals under EO 14115.
197.

Such vagueness is only exacerbated by the fact that regulated parties

do not know what constitutes a violation of the EO. Many terrorists havecommitted attacks and arson in the West Bank but have not faced sanctions under
EO 14115.
198.

Therefore, the arbitrary nature of the Administration’s enforcementof EO 14115 contributes to the vagueness of the EO, rendering it void.
COUNT VI
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Administrative Procedure Act
5 U.S.C. § 500, et seq.
143. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations as alleged above and incorporate
them herein.
144. The IEEPA authorizes the president to declare the existence of an“unusual and extraordinary threat . . . to the national security, foreign policy, or
economy of the United States” that originates “in whole or substantial part outside
the United States.” 50 U.S.C. §1701(a). It further authorizes the President, after
63

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 64 of 68 PageID 64

such a declaration, to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with the threat.
Section 1701(b) states that:the authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may
only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat withrespect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes ofthis chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose.
145. The President lacked the statutory authority to issue the EO in thefirst place because the alleged settler violence in Judea and Samaria is not an“unusual and extraordinary threat” as a matter of fact and law. 50 U.S.C. §1701(b).
146. The number of incidents referred to in the preamble of the EO isnegligible compared with the number of terrorist attacks against Jewish residentsof the region.
147. Moreover, the veracity of the information relied upon in the EO ishighly doubtful. In fact, there is reason to believe that the American authorities
relied exclusively upon information relayed by extremist groups without making
any effort to corroborate with Israeli authorities and the individuals in question.
Accordingly, EO 14115 was issued with no statutory authority under the IEEPA.
148. Section 1182(f) of the INA provides that:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class ofaliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of theUnited States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem
necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as
immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any
restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
149. The prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President must makea finding that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interestsof the United States.” 50 U.S.C. §1182(f).

64Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 65 of 68 PageID 65

150. With regards to Section 4 of EO 14115, however, the President did
not make the statutorily required finding. There is no evidence that the Biden
Administration conducted any significant evaluation or study concerning theeffect of the entry into the United States of Jewish residents in Judea and Samaria
or other Jews who allegedly “threaten the peace, security or stability of the WestBank.” Instead, the Biden Administration relied on unverified hearsay and biased,inaccurate data from extremist groups to reach the unfounded conclusion that theentry of these settlers constituted a threat to U.S. national security.
151. Section 4 of EO 14115 is not based on any finding that the entry of
the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States” [8U.S.C. 1182(f)] and, therefore, was issued without statutory authority.
152. Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside” agency
action that is “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not inaccordance with law” (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)), “contrary to constitutional right,
power, privilege, or immunity” (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B)), or “in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
153. Defendants’ implementation of Section 1 of the EO is arbitrary andcapricious because there is no evidence that Jewish-Israeli settler violence is athreat to the stability of the West Bank or a threat to U.S. national security.
Moreover, the arbitrary and capricious nature of OFAC’s determination of which
entities to place on the SDN List in implementing the EO is further demonstrated
by the fact that OFAC has exclusively targeted Israeli Jews, despite theoverwhelming evidence that Israeli Jews in Judea and Samaria pose no threat tostability or peace.
65

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 66 of 68 PageID 66

154. Defendants failed to perform any basic fact-finding prior to
implementing and enforcing the EO in such a one-sided and draconian manner.
155. EO 14115 also violates the APA because it was issued lacking any
statutory authority, either under the IEEPA, NEA or the INA, as discussed above.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
a. Declare that EO 14115 and Defendants’ enforcement of EO 14115
against Plaintiffs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;b. Declare that EO 14115 and Defendants’ enforcement of EO 14115
against Plaintiffs violates the First and Fifth Amendments to theUnited States Constitution;c. Declare that EO 14115 was issued without statutory authority
under the IEEPA and INA and issued in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act’s provisions, 5 U.S.C. §706.
d. Issue an order preliminarily and permanently setting aside theagency action and enjoining Defendants from implementing andenforcing EO 14115 both as to Plaintiffs and as to any similarly
situated persons who likewise object to EO 14115 on religious or
speech grounds;
e. Grant the appropriate attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412(b);f. Grant the appropriate attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under
42 U.S.C. §1988(b) as to the RFRA claim;

66

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 67 of 68 PageID 67

g. Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem justand proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: August 6, 2024.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
Jonathan Mitchelljonathan@mitchell.law
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78701
T. (512) 686-3940
F. (512) 686-3941
ZELL, ARON & CO.
L. Marc Zell*mzell@fandz.com
34 Ben Yehuda St.
14th Floor
Jerusalem, Israel 9423001
T. 011-972-2-633-6300
andNoam Schreiber*noam.schreiber@fandz.com
Binyamin Tech
Habanai 2
East Binyamin, Israel
T. 011-972-2-633-6300

LEWIN & LEWIN, LLP
Nathan Lewin*
nat@lewinlewin.com
888 17th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 2006
T. (202) 828-1000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MARCUS & MARCUS LLC
Jerome M. Marcus*
jmarcus@marcuslaw.us
P.O. Box 212
Merion Station, PA. 19066
T. (610) 664 1184

Professor Abraham Bell*avibell@sandiego.edu
University of San Diego School of Law
5998 Alcala ParkSan Diego, CA 92110
T. (619) 260 7519

HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN TORCHINSKY& JOSEFIAK, PLLC
Jason B. Torchinsky*
jtorchinsky@holtzmanvogel.com
Erielle Davidson*edavidson@holtzmanvogel.com
2300 N Street NW, Suite 643
Washington, DC 20037
T. (202) 737-8808
F. (540) 341-8809
andAndrew Pardue*
apardue@holtzmanvogel.com
15405 John Marshall Highway
Haymarket, VA 20169
T. (540) 341-8808
F. (540) 341-8809*Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming67

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1 Filed 08/06/24

68

Page 68 of 68 PageID 68

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 1 of 5 PageID 69

Exhibit A

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 2 of 5 PageID 70

Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 24/Monday, February 5, 2024/Presidential Documents

7605

Presidential Documents

Executive Order 14115 of February 1, 2024

Imposing Certain Sanctions on Persons Undermining Peace,
Security, and Stability in the West Bank
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and thelaws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) and section 215(a)of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182({) and 8
U.S.C. 1185(a)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, findthat the situation in the West Bank-in particular high levels of extremist
settler violence, forced displacement of people and villages, and property
destruction-has reached intolerable levels and constitutes a serious threat
to the peace, security, and stability of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel,
and the broader Middle East region. These actions undermine the foreign
policy objectives of the United States, including the viability of a twostate solution and ensuring Israelis and Palestinians can attain equal measuresof security, prosperity, and freedom. They also undermine the security of
Israel and have the potential to lead to broader regional destabilization
across the Middle East, threatening United States personnel and interests.
For these reasons, these actions constitute an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.
I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
Accordingly, I hereby order:
Section 1. All property and interests in property that are in the UnitedStates, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter
come within the possession or control of any United States person, including
any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not
be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:(a) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State:(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly
engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following:(A) actions-including directing, enacting, implementing, enforcing, or
failing to enforce policies-that threaten the peace, security, or stabilityof the West Bank; or(B) planning, ordering, otherwise directing, or participating in any of
the following actions affecting the West Bank:(1) an act of violence or threat of violence targeting civilians;(2) efforts to place civilians in reasonable fear of violence with the
purpose or effect of necessitating a change of residence to avoid such
violence;(3) property destruction; or(4) seizure or dispossession of property by private actors;(ii) to be or have been a leader or official of:(A) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in,or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described insubsections (a) or (b) of this section related to the leader's or official's
tenure; or
1

7606

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 3 of 5 PageID 71

Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 24/Monday, February 5, 2024/Presidential Documents(B) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked
pursuant to this order as a result of activities relating to the leader'sor official's tenure;(iii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material,or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of,any person blocked pursuant to this order; or(iv) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported toact for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person blocked pursuant
to this order; or(b) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury:(i) to have committed or have attempted to commit, to pose a significant
risk of committing, or to have participated in training to commit actsof terrorism affecting the West Bank; or(ii) to be a leader or official of an entity sanctioned pursuant to subsection(b)(i) of this section.
Sec. 2. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to theextent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses
that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract
entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include:(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services
by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests inproperty are blocked pursuant to this order; and(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services
from any such person.
Sec. 4. (a) The umestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into theUnited States of noncitizens determined to meet one or more of the criteria
in section 1 of this order would be detrimental to the interests of theUnited States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as
immigrants or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except when the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate, determines that the person's entry would not be contrary to the interests of
the United States, including when the Secretary of State or the Secretaryof Homeland Security, as appropriate, so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person's entry would further
important United States law enforcement objectives.
(b) The Secretary of State shall implement this order as it applies tovisas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish.
(c) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement this order as
it applies to the entry of noncitizens pursuant to such procedures as the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
may establish.
(d) Such persons shall be treated by this section in the same manneras persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011
(Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council
Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading
or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forthin this order is prohibited.
Sec. 6. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types ofarticles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) by, to,or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property
are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to2

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 4 of 5 PageID 72

Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 24/Monday, February 5, 2024/Presidential Documents

7607

deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit
such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order:(a) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture,corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;(b) the term "noncitizen" means any person who is not a citizen or
noncitizen national of the United States;(c) the term "person" means an individual or entity;(d) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen,
lawful permanent resident, entity organized under the laws of the UnitedStates or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign
branches), or any person in the United States; and(e) the term "terrorism" means an activity that:(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property,
or infrastructure; and(ii) appears to be intended:(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;or(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.
Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property areblocked or affected by this order who might have a constitutional presencein the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds
and other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures
to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual.
I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing
the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior noticeof a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretaryof State, is authorized to take such actions, including the promulgationof rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President
by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order.
The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate
any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All executive
departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate
measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 10. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conductof the official business of the Federal Government or the United Nations(including its specialized agencies, programs, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, and contractors thereof.
Sec. 11. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretaryof State, is authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congresson the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section
401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50
U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 12. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise
affect:(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency,
or the head thereof; or(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law andsubject to the availability of appropriations.
3

7608

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-1 Filed 08/06/24

Page 5 of 5 PageID 73

Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 24/Monday, February 5, 2024/Presidential Documents(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party
against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers,
employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 1, 2024.
[FR Doc. 2024-02354
Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3395-F4-P

4

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-2 Filed 08/06/24

Page 1 of 3 PageID 74

Exhibit B

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-2 Filed 08/06/24

Page 2 of 3 PageID 75

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

March 26, 2024

Daniel Hahiashvili
Supervisor of Banks
Bank of Israel
2 Bank of Israel Street
Jerusalem, Israel
Dear Mr. Hahiashvili:
Thank you for your engagement on the topic of Executive Order (E.O.) 14115, which President
Biden issued on February 1, 2024. This E.O. establishes the authority under which the
Departments of the Treasury and State may sanction those who undermine peace, security, andstability in the West Bank, including extremist settler violence against Palestinian and Israeli
civilians and forced displacement of farmers and villages.
We understand that Israeli banks have questions regarding subsistence payments for persons
sanctioned under this authority. I am providing this guidance for you to share, as you see
appropriate, with Israeli banks in order to provide some clarity.
Consistent with Treasury’s approach across multiple sanctions programs, Israeli banks canprocess transactions for individuals designated under E.O. 14115 that are ordinarily incident andnecessary to basic human needs or subsistence without exposure to OFAC sanctions risk,
provided these transactions do not involve the U.S. financial system or U.S. persons. Israelibanks would also not be exposed to sanctions risk for processing transactions for expenses
essential for the survival of animals on farms that are blocked as a result of a designation of theirowners.
We would consider the following types of basic living expenses and subsistence payments to bewithin the scope of this guidance: food; medical care and associated health insurance; childcare;basic housing; basic education; basic transportation; medical care and insurance; utilities; funeral
expenses; and taxes or fees paid to the Israeli government. This guidance applies only totransactions involving basic subsistence and does not include large payments or expenses beyond
basic living expenses or the kind of crowdfunding support that we have seem extremists use toraise funds internationally.
Accordingly, Israeli banks would not be exposed to OFAC sanctions risk for processing
transactions that (1) are ordinarily incident to basic human needs and/or subsistence consistent
with the guidance outlined in this letter; (2) do not involve the U.S. financial system or U.S.
persons; and (3) do not involve any other blocked persons other than persons blocked under
E.O. 14115.

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-2 Filed 08/06/24

Page 3 of 3 PageID 76

Thank you again for your partnership, and please reach out with any additional questions orrequests for guidance. We encourage anyone with questions or the need for additional guidance
to contact the OFAC Compliance Hotline at +1-800-540-6322 or
OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov.
Sincerely,

Bradley T. Smith

Digitally signed by Bradley T.
Smith
Date: 2024.03.26 20:11:45 -04'00'

Bradley T. Smith
Director
Office of Foreign Assets Control

2

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-3 Filed 08/06/24

Page 1 of 5 PageID 77

Exhibit C

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-3 Filed 08/06/24

Page 2 of 5 PageID 78

Noam Schreiber <noam.schreiber@fandz.com>

QUESTIONS AND ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER
14115, 89 FED. REG. 7605 (FEB. 1, 2024)
Noam Schreiber <noam.schreiber@fandz.com>
To: OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov
Cc: Marc Zell <mzell@fandz.com>

Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:08 PM

Sir/Madam:
Attached to this email is a letter requesting guidance concerning the referenced
executive order.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Noam Schreiber, Esq.

Jerusalem Office
34 Ben Yehuda Street
City Tower Building
14th Floor
Jerusalem 9423001 ISRAEL
Tel.: +972-2-633-6300 Fax: +972-2-672-1767
Email: noam.schreiber@fandz.com
Web: www.fandz.com
Guidance Letter to OFAC May 22, 2024.pdf
256K
OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov <OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov>
To: noam.schreiber@fandz.com
Cc: mzell@fandz.com, OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov

Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:48 AM

Hello,

Thank you for your email. Due to security protocols, OFAC is unable to open attachments
contained in e-mail correspondence sent to this address. We apologize for the inconvenience,
but we were not able to review the information you provided in your attachment. You may
respond to this email with your question or request written in the text of the email and we will
respond as soon as possible.

Sincerely,1Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-3 Filed 08/06/24

2
1

Page 3 of 5 PageID 79

2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-3 Filed 08/06/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID 80
34 BenCase
YehudaStreetCity Tower Building
14th Floor
Jerusalem 9423001 ISRAEL
Tel.: +972-2-633-6300 Fax: +972-2-672-1767
Email: noam.schreiber@fandz.com
Web: https://hyperlink.services.treasury.gov/agency.do?origin=www.fandz.com
Noam Schreiber <noam.schreiber@fandz.com>
To: OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov
Cc: mzell@fandz.com, OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov

Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:52 AM

Thank you for your quick response.
Our firm represents several individuals and entities who engage or intend to engage
in political and charitable activities in connection with Judea and Samaria (alsoknown as the “West Bank”). Our clients are concerned that some or all of these
activities may be potentially sanctionable under Executive Order 14115, 89 Fed. Reg.
7605, 2024 WL 404478 (Feb. 1, 2024) (“EO” or “EO 14115”). The confusion of ourclients stems from certain ambiguities in the EO as well as the recent imposition of
sanction on two Israeli entities that raised funds for the wives’ and minor children ofblocked individuals, not the blocked individuals themselves. See Treasury
Designates Entities Involved in Raising Funds for Violent Extremists in the W. Bank,
Treas. JY-2281, 2024 WL 1694915 (Apr. 19, 2024) (placing the Israeli non-profit
organizations “Mount Hebron Fund” and “Shlom Asiraich” on the Specially
Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List).
Accordingly, we request the following clarifications on behalf of our clients (SeeLetter from Bradley T. Smith, OFAC Director, to Daniel Hahiashvili, Supervisor ofBanks, Bank of Israel (March 26, 2024), available on the OFAC website here (“Weencourage anyone with questions or the need for additional guidance to contact the
OFAC Compliance Hotline at […] OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov.”).
Would the following activities be sanctionable under EO 14115?:(1) Engaging in speech and political organization (i.e., protests) opposing a
two-state solution or defending the right of Jews to live in the West Bank;(2) Residing in or supporting the natural growth and expansion of Jewish
communities in the West Bank;(3) Opposing in a non-violent manner efforts to undermine the Oslo Accords,
including the Fayyad Plan of unilateral Palestinian take-over of open land in
Area C;(4) Donating to Jewish charitable causes in the West Bank, such as schools
for disadvantaged children;(5) Donating to Jewish charitable causes in the West Bank to enablecommunities to procure equipment for self-defence and security;
3
1

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-3 Filed 08/06/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID 81(6)
Supporting, in a non-violent manner, Israeli sovereignty over all or part of
the West Bank;(7) Engaging in self-defence and protecting Jews from armed attack orresisting efforts at violent trespass by Palestinians;(8) Asserting title to and defending occupancy and ownership of land duly
acquired by Jews in the West Bank against trespassers;(9) Maintaining a social media account dedicated to opposing a two-statesolution.
(10) Maintaining a social media account dedicated to supporting Israel
sovereignty over the West Bank;(11) Advocating or lobbying for Israeli legislation or policy that would prevent a
two-state solution;(12) Advocating or lobbying for Israeli legislation or policy that supports Israel
sovereignty over the West Bank.
In addition, please clarify whether the term “foreign person” as used in the EO
includes individuals who hold both U.S. and foreign citizenship (dual nationals).
Each of the clarifications that we seek in this letter stem from concrete fears
and concerns by our clients regarding their activities. As things currently stand, ourclients, both in Israel and abroad (including the United States), are unable to freely
engage in the aforementioned activities (or similar activities) as a result of thevagueness and breadth of EO 14115, both by its own terms and as applied up until
now. We would therefore request your immediate attention in addressing thesematters.
With professional regards,
Noam Schreiber, Esq.

Jerusalem Office
34 Ben Yehuda Street
City Tower Building
14th Floor
Jerusalem 9423001 ISRAEL
Tel.: +972-2-633-6300 Fax: +972-2-672-1767
Email: noam.schreiber@fandz.com
Web: www.fandz.com[Quoted text hidden]

41Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-4 Filed 08/06/24

Page 1 of 2 PageID 82

Exhibit D

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-4 Filed 08/06/24

1

Page 2 of 2 PageID 83

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-5 Filed 08/06/24

Page 1 of 4 PageID 84

Exhibit E

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-5 Filed 08/06/24

Page 2 of 4 PageID 85

Noam Schreiber <noam.schreiber@fandz.com>

QUESTIONS AND ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER
14115, 89 FED. REG. 7605 (FEB. 1, 2024)
Noam Schreiber <noam.schreiber@fandz.com>
To: OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov, OFACLicensing@treasury.gov
Cc: Marc Zell <mzell@fandz.com>, jmarcus@marcuslaw.us
Bcc: ‫< מאיר דויטש‬m.negev@gmail.com>, ‫< נעמי קאהן‬naomi@regavim.org>

Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 3:36 PM

Our firms represent The Regavim Movement, a public interest organization
dedicated to the protection of Israel’s national lands and resources, as well as Regavim’s
Chief Executive Officer, Meir Deutsch; a number of persons who have donated to Regavim
and wish to continue to do so; and a number of persons, including churches and politicaladvocacy organizations, which have interacted with, supported, and been addressed by
Regavim and its leaders. The Regavim Movement is active in the public, parliamentaryand judicial spheres, through publication of opinion and research papers, and through thedissemination of reports, policy and opinion papers, media communications and, whennecessary, legal action.
One of Regavim’s initiatives is support for Tsav 9, an entity which conducts
nonviolent demonstrations and civil disobedience in an effort to prevent the transfer ofassets to Hamas. Hamas is a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,
https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/, and the provision of any financial
support to Hamas is a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A and B.
Tsav 9 is resolutely nonpartisan, and is supported over 15,000 members andsupporters from all walks of Israeli life, and from all points on the religious and political
spectra. Tzav 9 has publicly applauded and supported steps taken by the US and Israeli
governments to ensure that Gaza aid actually reaches the civilian population of Gaza,
rather than Hamas warehouses, including the construction and operation of thehumanitarian pier off the Gaza coast. Tsav 9 supp
The protest activities in which Tsav 9 has engaged are completely nonviolent, andprecisely the kind of public advocacy, and civil disobedience, of which President Biden, andmembers of his administration, have explicitly approved.
The United States has imposed sanctions on Tsav 9 pursuant to Executive Order
14115, notwithstanding the facts that
- Its activities are exclusively speech and civil disobedience, which President
Biden has declared is protected First Amendment activity;-

Hamas is, indisputably, capturing aid sent into Gaza;- The transfer of any resources to Hamas is a federal crime and directly
contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States;- Tsav 9 has explicitly and publicly condemned any violence in connection withthe delivery of aid to Gaza, and has taken careful and effective steps to ensure1

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-5 Filed 08/06/24
that its activities are completely peaceful;

Page 3 of 4 PageID 86- Transfer to Hamas, or capture by Hamas, of aid designated for Gaza has
occurred repeatedly, as acknowledged by the State Department itself, former US
Ambassador David Satterfield, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, andvarious Palestinian media and civic and political organizations including Fatah,
as well as by the Israeli government and the Israel Defense Forces;- Although officials from Regavim have been in regular contact with American
diplomatic officials, the United States government made no contact with them orwith the leadership or membership of Tsav 9 prior to the issuance of the
sanctions, to learn anything about Tsav 9’s activities or public statements.

In light of the foregoing, we request the following clarifications on behalf of ourclients (See Letter from Bradley T. Smith, OFAC Director, to Daniel Hahiashvili,
Supervisor of Banks, Bank of Israel (March 26, 2024), available on the OFAC website here(“We encourage anyone with questions or the need for additional guidance to contact the
OFAC Compliance Hotline at […] OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov.”).
Would the following activities be sanctionable under EO 14115:
1. May American citizens donate funds to Regavim?
2. May an American citizen serve as an officer of Regavim?
3. May American citizens donate funds to Regavim, designated for support of Tsav
9?
4. May American citizens invite officers of Regavim to speak in their churches orsynagogues? Does this depend on whether the invited speaker discusses the activityof Tsav 9? May they pay the travel expenses incurred in connection with such a
speaking engagement? May they pay the speaker an honorarium?
5. May American citizens invite persons leading Tsav 9 to speak in their churchesor synagogues? May they pay the travel expenses incurred in connection with such a
speaking engagement? May they pay the speaker an honorarium?
In addition, please clarify whether the term “foreign person” as used in the EO
includes individuals who hold both U.S. and foreign citizenship (dual nationals).
Each of the clarifications that we seek in this letter stem from concrete fears andconcerns by our clients regarding their activities. As things currently stand, our clients,
both in Israel and abroad (including the United States), are unable to freely engage in the
aforementioned activities (or similar activities) as a result of the vagueness and breadth of
EO 14115, both by its own terms and as applied up until now. We would therefore request
your immediate attention in addressing these matters.
With professional regards,/s/ L. Marc Zell_______________________
L. Marc Zell/s/ Noam Schreiber____________________________
Noam Schreiber2

7/23/24, 9:47 PM

Zell Aron & Co. Mail - QUESTIONS AND ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 14115, 89 FED. REG. …

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-5 Filed 08/06/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID 87
Zell, Aron & Co.
Zell, Aron & Co.
34 Ben Yehuda St.
Binyamin Tech
Habanai 2
14th Floor
East Binyamin, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel 9423001
011-972-2-633-6300
011-972-2-633-6300
Email: noam.schreiber@fandz.com
Email: mzell@fandz.com
Admitted to the Bars of the Districtof Columbia, the State of Maryland,
the Commonwealth of Virginia, D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals,
the United States Supreme Court andthe State of Israel.

Admitted to the Bars of the District ofColumbia, the D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals, the State of New York and theState of Israel.

/s/ Jerome M. Marcus
Jerome M. Marcus
MARCUS & MARCUS LLC
P.O. Box 212
Merion Station, PA. 19066
610-664-1184
jmarcus@marcuslaw.us
Admitted to the Bar of Pennsylvania
Cc.:
Meir Deuch, Executive Director, Regavim

Jerusalem Office
34 Ben Yehuda Street
City Tower Building
14th Floor
Jerusalem 9423001 ISRAEL
Tel.: +972-2-633-6300 Fax: +972-2-672-1767
Email: noam.schreiber@fandz.com
Web: www.fandz.com
3

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-6 Filed 08/06/24

Page 1 of 3 PageID 88

Exhibit F

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-6 Filed 08/06/24

OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov <OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov>
To: noam.schreiber@fandz.com
Cc: mzell@fandz.com, jmarcus@marcuslaw.us, OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov

Page 2 of 3 PageID 89

Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 10:38 PM

Hello,

Thank you for your email. In general, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) does not administer comprehensive sanctions against the West Bank. The West Bank is1

Case
2:24-cv-00167-Z
Document
1-6at thisFiled
08/06/24
Pageof activity
3 PageID
90 thenot subject
to broad,
jurisdiction-based
sanctionstime,meaning that
not3 allinvolvingWest Bank, or persons located in the West Bank, are necessarily prohibited.

OFAC administers and enforces an economic sanctions program targeting individuals and entities
associated with the West Bank, as set forth in the West Bank-Related Sanctions (the Regulations),
Executive Order 14115, issued under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,
50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-06 and other statutes. The Regulations generally prohibit all unauthorizedtransactions by U.S. persons or within the United States involving the property or interests in property of
any individual or entity blocked pursuant to this sanctions program. For more information, please see theRegulations and OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, as well asother information specific to each sanctions program, on our website at https://ofac.treasury.gov. For
more information about West Bank-Related sanctions, please see Sanctions Program Website from
Program List page: here.

On June 14, 2024, the U.S. Department of State designated Tzav 9 pursuant to Executive Order(E.O.) 14115. Section 3 of E.O. 14115 details that U.S. persons are prohibited from “(a)the making of
any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose
property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and (b)the receipt of any
contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.”
11. Who must comply with OFAC regulations?
U.S. persons must comply with OFAC regulations, including all U.S. citizens and permanent resident
aliens regardless of where they are located, all persons and entities within the United States, all U.S.
incorporated entities and their foreign branches. In the cases of certain programs, foreign subsidiaries
owned or controlled by U.S. companies also must comply. Certain programs also require foreign persons
in possession of U.S.-origin goods to comply.

Sincerely,
Compliance Division
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20220
Toll Free: 1-800-540-6322
Local: 1-202-622-2490
Email: OFAC_Feedback@treasury.gov
Website: https://ofac.treasury.govjh2

JS 44 (Rev. 03/24)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-7 Filed 08/06/24

Page 1 of 2 PageID 91

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Texans for Israel; Michael Isley; Regavim, A.R.; Meir
Deutsch; Yosef Ben Chaim; and Ari Abramowitz

U.S. Dept. of the Treasury; Janet L. Yellen, In her official
capacity as Sec. of the Treasury, et al.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)NOTE:(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Mitchell Law PLLC, Jonathan Mitchell, Esq. ,111
Congress Ave., Ste 400, Austin, Tx 78701, 512-686-3940
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)✖

1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

3

Federal Question(U.S. Government Not a Party)

2

U.S. Government
Defendant

4

Diversity(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property✖

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)✖

1 Original
Proceeding

2 Removed fromState Court

3

Attorneys (If Known)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions ofConfinement

Remanded from
Appellate Court

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

2

2

Incorporated and Principal Placeof Business In Another State

5

5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country33Foreign Nation

6

6

FORFEITURE/PENALTYPERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability

DEF
1

625 Drug Related Seizureof Property 21 USC 881
690 Other

LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
BANKRUPTCYOTHER STATUTES

422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS

375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit(15 USC 1681 or 1692)
485 Telephone Consumer
Protection Act
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality ofState Statutes

820 Copyrights
830 Patent
835 Patent - Abbreviated
New Drug Application
840 Trademark
880 Defend Trade Secrets
Act of 2016
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

5 Transferred from
Another District(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

U.S. Constitution; 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. (“APA”); the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); and 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY

Challenge to the constitutionality and legality of portions of Executive Order 14115

DATE

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
(See instructions):

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

DEMAND $JURY DEMAND:JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

August 6, 2024
FOR OFFICE USE ONLYRECEIPT #AMOUNTAPPLYING IFPJUDGEMAG. JUDGE

Yes

No

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 03/24)

Case 2:24-cv-00167-Z Document 1-7 Filed 08/06/24

Page 2 of 2 PageID 92

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover SheetThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and thenthe official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at thetime of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, thecitizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark thissection for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit codethat is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due tochanges in statute.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related cases, if any. If there are related cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.