Full details available on the Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta case page. 

DC District Court Judge John Bates finds that the plaintiff does not have legal standing to challenge the targeting of his son, and that the case raises “political questions” not subject to court review. The opinion, though, does not rule on the merits of the case and acknowledges the serious issues raised by the lawsuit. Judge Bates calls the case “unique and extraordinary,” says it presents “[s]tark, and perplexing, questions” and finds that the merits “present fundamental questions of separation of powers involving the proper role of the courts in our constitutional structure.” He, finds, however, that “the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day…”

CCR and ACLU file a brief in response to the government's opposition to the preliminary injunction motion and motion to discuss the lawsuit. In its opposition and motion, the government maintains that Nasser Al-Aulaqi lacks standing to bring the case, that the issues are political questions not appropriate for judicial review, and that litigation would risk disclosure of "state secrets." In response, CCR and the ACLU argue that Dr. Al-Aulaqi has appropriate standing to assert his son's constitutional claims, that the determination of those claims present squarely justiciable issues, that Dr. Al-Aulaqi has also stated an appropriate claim in his own right under the Alien Tort Statute against the extra-judicial killing of his son, and that "state secrets" do not foreclose litigation of his claims.

Three declarations were submitted in support of the brief and the premise that the targeted killing of Dr. Al-Aulaqi’s son in Yemen would occur outside the context of armed conflict, including from Professor Bernard Haykel of Princeton University addressing factual issues concerning Yemen and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and from Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell of Notre Dame University addressing legal issues concerning armed conflict.

CCR and the ACLU had submitted a request to the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in July seeking authorization t0 provide pro bono legal servies to Nasser Al-Aulaqi. The OFAC requirements generally make it illegal to provide any service, including legal representation, to or for the benefit of an individual who is a Specifically Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).  A lawyer who provides legal representation for the benefit of a designated person without getting special permission is subject to criminal and civil penalties. OFAC designated Anwar Al-Aulawi as a SDGT on July 23, 2010. In early August, CCR and the ACLU filed suit against OFAC, charging that OFAC exceeded its authority by subjecting uncompensated legal services to a licensing requirement, and that OFAC’s regulations violate the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.  The lawsuit asked the court to invalidate the regulations and to make clear that lawyers can provide representation for the benefit of designated individuals without first seeking the government’s consent. The next day, OFAC licensed CCR and the ACLU to represent Nasser Al-Aulaqi.