Court Opinion

ID: 9453118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:03:09.890503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:31.133802
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
To the extent that my colleagues find no error in the order under review I would agree, but there I would stop. I think this case should not be remanded for any purpose.
Listed pursuant to the 1947 Executive Order No. 9835, and further listed after the 1953 Executive Order No. 10450, these appellants at neither time took the steps available to them to contest their designation. No timely challenge was levied against the orders or the regulations issued pursuant thereto. No administrative relief was sought. No judicial relief was asked. My colleagues acknowledge, as they must, that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the appellants’ present attack upon designation following Executive Order 10450, National Council of American-Soviet F. v. Brownell, 100 U.S.App. D.C.116, 243 F.2d 222 (1957).
But, some twelve years having elapsed since the designation, my colleagues say they can now discern that a justiciable controversy has emerged. Although no allegations had been submitted to the Attorney General to suggest a “material change in the character of the organization,” and there had been no showing of “newly discovered material evidence,” or why it is only now “newly discovered," my colleagues would cause this case to be reopened. Neither in their correspondence nor in the record had the appellants proffered compliance with the basis upon which the Attorney General said he would be moved to act.
Let them, even now, not on their own terms but on his, meet the conditions upon which the Attorney General said he would entertain reconsideration. This is no case for this court’s intervention on the record now before us.
I dissent.1

. And insofar as the majority seems to find that Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 322 F.2d 167 (7th Cir. 1964) has somehow infused new life into the defunct claim here resurrected, I suggest a mere reading of the opinion will demonstrate that a completely distinguishable issue was there presented. I agree with the Attorney General’s conclusion that what was there decided in 1964 was “entirely irrelevant” to the designation of the appellant organization in 1953.