we got together in my office. >> final question. >> the tech industry and other industries are about to push for repatriation of profits overseas. they say that is money that could be used to stimulate the economy. when you look what happened last time, by and large it went to shareholders and dividend payouts. what is your take on repatriation >> we need to be more competitive. i asked the head of microsoft and he talked about those issues. we have to make an issue -- a decision to expand somewhere. you do it with the money is. it is hard to go to your shareholders who you are obligated to take care of and

say we are going to take 25% it and bring the money -- the money here. i think all that matters. i concur that maybe it did not go into reinvestment. but without the shareholders, someone is paying capital gains taxes on that. that is money on the mark when -- in the marketplace. i would rather have it here in the form of dividends to shareholders than held offshore and never use in america. >> congressman greg walden. thank you. >> sunday on "washington journal," laura meckler discusses a bill to fund the

federal government through september. and the cato institute on cutting foreign aid during the economic downturn. and michael doonan talks about the struggles of his state's health program. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the ninth circuit court of appeals heard an oral argument on wednesday on a challenge to an organization's designation as a terrorist group. they will decide if the al haramain islamic foundation was denied due process when the government withheld information and evidence to justify its designation. a lower court that the labeling of the group as a terrorist organization. but found that officials

violated the group's writes by failing to provide -- rights by failing to provide notice about the designation. this is one hour, 15 minutes. >> we will take a brief recess and hear the remainder of the calendar. nice to see both of you again. you may proceed. >> may it please the court. i would like to reserve five

minutes for a rebuttal. the government has shut down a u.s. corporation indefinitely, imposing on it a form of civil providing notice of the charges against it before the administrative process was close. the corporation had no opportunity for a rebut. the government cannot deprive an individual of its property or deny an illegal alien a benefit without providing meaningful notice of the charges and disclosing the critical arguments against it. the government maintains that no rights were violated. on the contrary, the multiple errors are present and altered the corp.'s right to defend

itself. -- government can prohibit them from speaking out. because of the pursued role -- procedural charges, i will start with them. i will turn to the first amendment claims and then the fourth amendment. the failure to provide notice until the end of the process in 2008 when the record was closed and the decision was made. that independently violates due process. >> as i understand the posture of the case, there has been no cross appeal. there was, but it was withdrawn. is it a given in our analysis that notice was sufficient?

then we simply move on and so what? >> i think they have argued in the brief that notice was adequate. the cross appeal that they initially filed was with respect to a part of the decision that struck down the ability of the support a ban. >> they have revised it. >> they would argue that it is a ground for upholding the decision. >> let me get to be part of your argument on this point that is of concern to me. that is, even assuming that you are correct about the absence of notice, i want you to also assume for the purpose of my question that the record demonstrates that the basis of

the notice that eventually was given was well taken. i know you do not can see that. but if that is true, what possible relief is available to you? in other words, if there was inadequate notice, but there was and is no possibility of avoiding a listing, then what are we supposed to do? >> what you are asking is, was it harming them? >> you can look at it as harmless error or the absence of a billable relief. however you denominate its. is that an insurmountable problem? >> it is not an insurmountable

problem. the record does not support designation. the undisclosed record is predicate on the government's assertions repeated in its own press releases and not actual evidence that would satisfy any assessment of reliability and credibility. the disclosed record does not indicate that al harmain oregon supported any sgt. what is on the record supports pre-2001 conduct. for example, the chechnya donation in march of 2000. that could not possibly as supported a specially designated global terrorist because there were no specially designated global terrorist in march of 2000. they did not come into being

until september of 2001. >> when that concept came into being, you are saying acts that happened 25 years before then were supposed to be irrelevant? >> they are not irrelevant, but they do not support this nation. what the executive order and the regulations provide is that entities can be designated for supporting groups on the list. but there has to be a list and the groups have to be on the list before it can be prohibited for supporting a group that is on the list. there was no list in 2000. there was no list in 2000 -- in 1998. that is what most of the evidence relates to. had they shown or argued that we supported acts of terrorism, that is an independent basis for designation under the executive order. that would relate back to prior

acts of terrorism. an act of terrorism is an act of terrorism. it does not turn on a group being put on a list. they are saying we should be designated because, through our relationship to do al harmain saudi arabia, we supported al qaeda and other sgt's. in 2000 orno sgt's 1998. there is nothing to support an sgt that was on the list in 2000. you have to ask if there was anything we could have done differently had we told there was an issue. there is an issue of reviewing if we face the challenges we face. they froze all assets. they did not tell us what was at issue. we repeatedly said, how are we supposed to respond? we do not know what is at issue. they refuse to tell us.

in september of 2004, they designated us. they wrote us a letter that provided no explanation, no factual or legal basis for the decision whatsoever. in 2000 -- >> at that time, the also designated -- there were two designations at that time. >> they did not tell him the basis for his designation. nor did they tell us the basis for his designation. nor did they give up any indication that our designation might turn on his designation. >> his designation is not challenged in this appeal. >> he is not a party of this appeal. he is challenging his designation, the government's claim that he has not changed -- not challenged his designation is false. he challenged his designation in

2005. it is pending. he has also challenged his designation before the u.n. >> i wanted to follow up on my question. you knew in 2008 that mr. -- nothing has happened as a result of that? he was continuing on as a member of the board of al harmain. >> that is right. we said he would resign from the board. he would sever his ties from the board if it made any difference. le for himtile -- futi to do that. al harmain is designated by virtue of his connection to it.

we have said in sworn declaration that he would eggs -- he would resign and al harmain would accept his resignation. the court has said that kind of severing of ties is relevant. regulations say that corporate reorganizations or resignations of persons from positions on a board is a basis of consideration. had we known in 2004 that that was an issue, he would have resigned at that point. we would have considered it. it would be relevant that this person know longer has any ownership or control of al harmain. we were particularly -- we were precluded from making that argument because we were never told that was an issue in the case until there was a decision

made and there was nothing we can do. >> what remedy are you proposing? >> every man to the agency so that we can have a fair -- a remand to the agency so that we can have a fair hearing. the court held that when an agency failed to disclose -- in that case, it was a single report -- that renders its decision arbitrary and capricious because it is not based on a complete record because the entity has not had a chance to respond. it is not just that they did not give us a single report. they did not tell us what was the issue in the case. >> if this were to occur, would you anticipate that the government would be able to send a new notice of additional reasons for is designation? would it be restricted to the original designation or

restricted to the re- designation? >> that would be up to this court. the appropriate relief is to send the matter back to the agency so that we have a meaningful opportunity to respond, requiring the agency to cure the apa and due process problems. there is a critical alliance on secret evidence. we have had no access to counsel. the answer would be, we get a clear shot. that is all we are seeking, a fair shot to defend ourselves. if they conclude we have failed to demonstrate that we did not support any specially designated global terrorists, if they conclude that we failed to show

that mr. --was not properly designated, that was something we could have and would have challenged -- our relationship to him cannot be a legitimate basis for the action against us. we were not able to bring those grounds -- that challenge. he resigned from al harmain saudi arabian in 2002. as of 2008, when we were designated by virtue of him having control, he had not been with the agency for several years. al harmain saudi arabia was dissolved in 2004. we also could have shown with respect to the clay and that al harmain oregon is related to a al harmain saudi arabian and is responsible for what al harmain saudi arabian did, we could demonstrate the independence of al harmain oregon from al

harmain saudi arabian. al harmain saudi arabia was the thought as of 2004. it was closed down by the saudi arabian government. al harmain saudi arabia was close down in 2004. al harmain oregon remains an independent entity. if it was relayed it to al harmain saudi arabia, it would not exist as of this date. three of its four board members were related -- where members of al harmain saudi arabia. as of 2003, none of its board members were relate it to al harmain saudi arabia. two members had resigned in 2003. mr. -- had resigned in 2002.

as of the first designation, there were no board members who were relate it to al harmain oregon with respect al harmain saudi arabia. we could have shown that al harmain oregon had no connection to anything that al harmain saudi arabia did. we were not able to make any of those arguments. why? because what they did was not provide notice of the charges. they dumped hundreds of pages of documents on us. those pages identified over 200 organizations and individuals as potentially problematic with no indication of the connection we might have to them. it included indictment of a man

and there was never indicated of how that was connected. never any indication of how we are connected to his criminal conduct or that that was a basis for designation. that was not a basis for designation. it included a report that the cia was hunting for osama bin laden. there was no indication of what the link was. it included pages of the united states versus osama bin laden. it included an outbreak of disease in saudi arabia. no indication of what the relevance was. how is an entity supposed to defend itself when it gets that kind of information and it repeatedly says, we are entitled to know what is at issue. ofac consistently refused to tell us what was at issue until

the administrative records were close. we could no longer provide a response. the decision has been made. that is clearly in violation of the decision that holds that due process requires a notice of actual legal basis, disclosure of the evidence -- we will never provide disclosure of the clause by aids -- classified evidence, and we were never provided disclosure of reasons. >> you argued in your brief that you think this is a type of structural error. the supreme court has been careful about that. i use my words carefully -- about finding areas of structural era. we have not found one in the case of -- structural errors.

what is your best authority that we ought to take the step in saying that this kind of error is structural rather than just --? >> they cannot show that there is nothing we could have done that might have changed the results. as a structural error, which i did the supreme court case where the court found structural error without any application of the harmless error analysis in a civil proceeding. i cannot name the case, but it is cited in a footnote. finally, lashing out or structural error does not turn on criminal versus civil bursas administrative. it turns on whether the error is the kind of error that fundamentally affects the

process that was employed. such that it is not possible to reverse engineer the procedure and determine what would have happened if you exercise the unconstitutional action. the addition of a coerced confession -- you can look at the rest of the evidence and ask if the rest of the evidence is edition. if you have a trial without a complaint or indictment, a provision of no notice and critical reliance on secret evidence that we have had no opportunity to confront or rebut, how can they say that, had we known what we do not know, and had they told us the charges at the beginning of the trial, there is literally nothing we could have said that would have been relevant to the kind of determination, namely whether al harmain oregon, an independent organization in the united states that is to reach it islamic literature throughout the united states and was

engaged in teaching about islam, is properly designated. we could have done as suggested. we could have challenged the designation. we could have severed ties. we could have challenged the relationship between al haramain islamic foundation oregon and al harmain saudi arabia. but we were forced to guess. we guessed that they were concerned about the tradition of our literature. much of the record that they turned over to us was our literature. the only thing that act of us was that we provide with an example of the literature we did today. the second thing we focus on was the chechnya relief mission. we put in evidence showing that it was for humanitarian aid. it was for officially sanctioned russian/saudi arabian

operations that were approved at the high levels of government. it supported humanitarian aid. it cannot possibly have supported global terrorism. all we were able to present was what we guess. they said our defense was misguided because that is not what we are concerned about. we are concerned about the connections to sgt's. could have said that in 2004. but they sent us a letter saying you are designated without giving us any indication of the reasons. the other thing they did was issue a press release. not a letter, but a press release. that press release, the district

court found, was misleading. it said that we had direct links to al qaeda -- osama bin laden, excuse me. there is no evidence of that. it said al harmain had engaged in tax violations and currency violations. that is not a basis for designation under the law. not a basis for designation in their ultimate decision. they did not say we would be designated by virtue of our relationship to al harmain saudi arabia, which supportedsgt's. -- supported sgt's. the government designated some branches, but not al harmain saudi arabia. the secretary of the treasury,

when the government first designated to read is a al harmain in bosnia and somalia, stated that al harmain in saudi arabia is not being designated. they are dedicated to the promotion of islamic education. the government gave it the stamp of approval. we cannot be held responsible for having an association with it when the government gives it the stamp of approval. the bottom line is, all we are seeking with respect to our do process, is the opportunity to make these arguments to the agency so that the agency can consider them, they will be part of the record, the agency can issue a decision, and that decision can be reviewed as unsatisfactory. let me turn to the first amendment claim of the multi- cultural association. the government claims they can make it a crime for a

multicultural association to court they will al harmain in protesting this action. they put in direction say that is precisely what they want to do. they want to provide advocacy services to support the challenge to this designation. >> what distinctions do you see between the situation in this case and the humanitarian law project decision by the supreme court? >> that is the key question. the government says there are no distinctions. i think there is a clear distinction. the supreme court struck down -- of held prohibitions -- upheld prohibitions on the provisions of services in the form of human rights training

and peacemaking to a foreign terrorist organization. they reject it the intermediate scrutiny argument the government made. they thought it satisfied strict scrutiny because it had a list of assets of eight foreign our nation. assets we cannot control because they are outside the united states. it specifically said, we are limiting our decision to eight and speech of foreign organizations. it said we are not addressing the issue of whether foreign advocacy would be permitted. this is advocacy in support of a domestic organization. the critical difference is, with respect to a domestic likeization al harmain lik-- al harmain, there is no risk

that its treatment by the government can free up resources back al harmain that they can use for terrorist activities. there are about $400,000 they have frozen by the government's actions. unlike a form an organization, whose assets be government cannot control, their assets can be controlled. there is no risk that it will free up money that will be used for terrorist activity. the government says al harmain oregon is connected to al harmain saudi arabian. al harmain saudi arabia does not exist. it was dissolved in 2004. there is no way anything al harmain oregon can do that can support an entity that has not

existed for seven years. under strict scrutiny, it has to hold that a multi cultural organization has the right to help the organization like al harmain protest its designation. they make a distinction for legal services. why should lawyers be allowed to make that kind of political, public advocacy and ordinary citizens should not. the government has made no explanation why that distinction should hold. i see that i am into my rebuttal time. i would like to reserve it. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> may it please the court. i am from the department of justice. we are urging that the judgment from the district court be affirmed. my friend made a number of points. my plan was too large to go through them and rebut them. i will stop at any point and answer your questions. you asked if there was a cross appeal necessary. fortunately, my friend gave the correct answer. >> an alternative ground. >> we did not need cross appeal. if we had cross appeal, this court would have dismissed our cross appeal. we did a separate cross appealed that became moot. we dismissed. >> i am fairly sure that had we

kept going with the cross appeal on this ground, there would have been four briefs instead of three. i am sure the court would have dismissed our cross appeal. going directly to some of the points that were made and in doing so, i want to point out what we are dealing with. as he properly said, the government has designated al harmain oregon as being a branch -- we will call a al harmain it global --we will call it al harmain global. >> can you take me through your statutory analysis so i understand the government's position as to how you designate one entity on the basis of the

support of a non designated entity? >> yes, your honor. this is in the executive order. >> i meant executive order. thank you for the correction. >> what the executive order provides, which are a in page b in the addendum in the professor's opening brief -- >> i believe that is from judge nelson's chambers. >> by the way, i am looking over here as often as i can. i assume, if you wish to interrupt, you will make that clear. >> thank you very much.

>> what the executive order provides is that an entity can be designated or being owned or controlled by or providing sgdt.t to and or an entity can be designated if it is involved in a terrorist act. it does not say an entity can be designated only if it is providing eight or assistance to an sgdt at the time it is designated. this makes perfect sense. the argument that was made has been rejected by the washington, d.c. circuit. you have to be able to look at a history of contact, the

relationship, before a terrorist act or before a designation. would not make any sense otherwise. for example, this executive order, as i recall, was promulgated on september 17, 2001. al qaeda was not designated before this time. but, clearly, the president needs to be able to self- designate or designate an entity for dealing with al qaeda in al qaeda committing terrorist acts. the point is not that you are simply designating something that they are doing right now. it is part of a whole record. is this entity tied in with global terrorism? i may have misspoken -- this

agent. here, it is absolutely clear. the evidence is overwhelming. at no point does the professor attempt to prove otherwise. al harmain has been one of the key financial supporters or groups such as al qaeda. much of the material he protests against that we provided to him was about the activities of al harmain. we wanted to show that al harmain is clearly tied into international terrorism. the question is, is this a branch of al harmain? as the d.c. circuit has pointed out several times, the standard of review here is, do you think the record is so poor and the reasoning is so poor that it is arbitrary and capricious by the secretary of the treasury?

here, it is not. >> that goes back to the question of notice. the district court concluded that, ultimately, reasons were given and that those reasons should have been given earlier -- counsel tociel prepare a response. your comments have not yet focused on the requirement of notice. how does your concept of notice it in? >> i will go right to that. our concept of notice is precisely what the d.c. circuit has required in identical cases. we are in the analogous situation under the anti- terrorism act of 1996. what the d.c. circuit has said is that we must provide the

entity with notice that it is being considered for designation and we must provide it an opportunity to respond, to provide information that the secretary will take into account. professor cole complains that he and his colleagues had to guess about what the treasury department was considering. for starters, the judge held that they get exactly right. it may have guessed wrong when it had something to do with the distribution. but they get exactly right. >> they guess as to -- they did not guess as to the importance of mr. --

>> the attorneys for al harmain saw reconsideration. if you look at the letters that they sent to the treasury department -- i will give you some examples of them. the excerpts are on pages 929, 949, and 1261. a reference the connection between al harmain global and they reference mr. -- there was a reference before about mr. -- challenging his designation. i am puzzled about this. he was designated a while ago challenging filed

that. i believe he was indicted and is a fugitive from justice. he is part of the criminal trial involving a conviction. he is a beaches -- a fugitive from american justice is not surprising that he has not challenged be read designation. the arguments that al harmain oregon made to treasury included him. this is not surprising at all. >> as a matter of constitutional analysis, why should one have to guess at the charges? doesn't make any difference if they guess correctly or not? >> yes, it does. it goes to if there was a due process violation or it goes to the judge's determination of harmless error. the air here is claiming -- error here is claiming

harmlessness. there were four directors of al harmain oregon. four people who founded it. the marine corps officers of -- three were officers of al harmain oregon. mr. -- was one of the late officers in transferring $150,000 from the oregon branch to al harmain global in saudi arabia carried he was one of the key actors in that. they completely conceded that. they have submitted all sorts of materials to treasury saying it was innocent. we sent all this money to al harmain global, but we did not mean it for terrorism. i will get to that point in a

moment. here is someone the district court went through in some detail. a vie als he had visa vi harmain global, he had the ability to contract for it. he did all this under the close supervision of mr. -- it is astonishing to hear the claim that they had no idea that would have been -- that he would have been of concern. it is absolutely clear from the record. >> from the notes is the district court found, the government should have note -- should have notified him that he es ofne of the basi

designation. why not let them know the reasons for the designation if you are confident you will prevail? >> we have a hamas error doctrine for this very purpose -- harmless error doctrine or this very purpose. it is right there in the statute. in addition, judge king does say he is disagreeing with the d.c. circuit on what is required. in saying we have to give some sort of notice of charges. the d.c. circuit has not required that. that makes sense because we have a whole program to implement. we have many individuals and organizations who are designated. >> what is the relevance of that? >> it would be extremely

burdensome if the agency had to give a notice of charges to each individual or entity that was considered for designation. >> that seems to be an argument that proves too much. if you live in an instant -- a district of a lot of bank robberies, you do not notify people that you are going to charge them with bank robbers. the fact that there are a lot of people to notify, does not mean you do not notify. >> we are dealing with a balancing. before the government wishes to prosecute bank robbers, it does not prosecute many bank robbers. before it prosecutes them, it has to do an indictment and give them notice. that is different from what matthews' balancing is requiring. we had to give notice under of

these circumstances, the program would grind to a halt. >> maybe you have more experience with this on a practical level. presumably, the government does not seek to designate someone without having a reason to do so. we all hope that that is the case. you know who it is or what it is and you know why before you proceed. >> if i might add, you have to engage in the formal designate ion process. this is a formal process that the agency is doing. i do not understand the burdens of nature in sending someone a letter explaining the reason. >> we designate thousands of entities and individuals. you can find this on the website for the treasury department or the state department. there are numerous designations.

in many circumstances, we would not even know whom to notice. >> the immigration authorities have the same problem. prosecutors have the same problem. >> prosecutors have a person in custody normally, someone they have indicted. they do not have to provide notice of charges before the process moves will work. when you say there is a formal process, there is. under the apa terminology, it is in a formal. the agency must do this for thousands of individuals or entities this is done on an emergency basis. we recently issued -- >> it does not provide a protection. it is often not done on an emergency basis. this is a case in which it was

not an emergency basis. it went on for years. >> i am tried to explain how difficult it would be for this sort of requirement to be imposed on all of the numerous designations that are engaged in. again, based on a balancing, i think what the d.c. circuit has said is -- >> you knew where the corporation was. you knew where the principles was the best principles were at that time. what prevented the government from sending notice to them at the onset? >> my argument is not that we cannot have sent notice. that is not the argument. harmless error must mean something. it clearly is harmless because of what happened. this court can issue a decision

on what the process requires and if judge king was wrong and if you disagree with the d.c. circuit. as far as a remand, it is clearly inappropriate here because it was harmless. >> you say you do thousands and thousands. isn't there a tremendous danger of designating people who might well within themselves had they had noticed and that this can destroy people and their businesses? i have trouble finding a reason explanation for why you decided to designate. >> often, we do not want assets to flee. we make a designation without warning. then, the entity can come in and

attempt an administrative process, which was done here, to convince the treasury department that it has made a mistake. >> if they don't know why and they have been designated -- i go back to judge thomas' qu question. why are they being designated? >> we do not know in advance who is going to challenge. the key thing is all of the -- both the apa and the district court held that this was harmless. >> you defend in one hand and then you retreat to harmless error. we are talking about the broader picture. as you say, there are emergency circumstances when the

government has to act. after it has acted and not telling an entity why you have seized all of his property seems antithetical to due process. >> we believe that under the circumstances here -- sorry if i am is repeating myself -- matthews says there is a balancing. we are dealing with a situation where there is nearly always part of the record that is sealed or classified. we are dealing with a large number of cases. in these cases, we agree with the d.c. circuit and what professor cole is arguing here is not required or due process. he was wrong in saying the d.c. circuit was wrong on this. >> before you use up your time entirely, i would appreciate you turning to the first amendment issue as well. the multi-cultural agency is not a terrorist organization.

it wants to work in favor or with a designated organization. why aren't the distinctions that the distinctions from the supreme court's analysis? >> two responses. first, i question -- in looking at this, we think this issue is moot as a practical matter. if this court upholds the designation of al harmain oregon, al harmain oregon does not appear to be doing things. it is not clear who that organization would be coordinating with. there seems to be a strong -- >> i guess i do not understand. they would be an entity, but

they could not spend any money. the entity would not cease to exist. >> we have to go to the specific argument the professor is making. they are free to any and all independent advocacy. that was relied on by the supreme court and by this court in a the the hlp versus treasuries case, the law of the circuit. the only argument they possibly have is that they want to work with al harmain. >> tell me under your view if they are already free to do this. the independent group wants to set up a press conference al harmain with -- with al harmain and have their chief spokesperson's linked arm in

arm and say we are working together to six -- fix x,y,z, situation that concerns us and we want to work together to do that. can they do that? >> al harmain cannot. >> isn't that coordinated activity? >> i believe this is practical mootness. al harmain oregon cannot have any situation where anybody is providing services to them. >> you are ebay in my hypothetical. they're going to talk about their views of what is happening. they are just going to talk. >> i am sorry, your honor.

mikaso is free to do that. that is absolutely clear. >> they want to do it with the other entities side by side. >> one of the officers was to talk. he can do that. however, it would be problematic if he wants to do the al harmain -- to that hold- with al harmain. >> in my hypothetical, all they're doing is talking. they may talk together arm in arm. we support their cause. >> if they are not talking independently. if they are talking under the direction and control -- >> coordinated.

>> that would not be a violation of the statute. that would not lead to criminal activity. this is why it is on point here. the last thing the professors said was, it is distinguishable because there were u.s. people who wanted to assist a foreign organization. remember, al harmain oregon is al harmain global. it is all the same thing. >> what about the distinction be made concerning assets. one of the big concerns the supreme court has is it you do humanitarian things over here, it frees up assets to go for improper purposes. hear, the assets are frozen. there cannot be a free up of assets now matter how much abbacy. why isn't that a valid distinction that would -- it

cannot be a free up of assets no matter how much advocacy. >> the u.s. organization wanted to provide training and other assistance to a foreign organization. originally, the professor was arguing his clients wanted to give money to that organization. that faded as the case went along. he said they wanted to provide training to that organization. the supreme court recognized that that was services. it did not matter that the assets were or were not moving. that was not the point. the point is, you cannot provide any services to a form an organization. >> is at the scene -- is advocacy services? i guess i am not sure where you are going. >> independent advocacy is not

services. you can do that as much or as little as you wish. >> let's say that after this argument, the university of oregon wants to sponsor a seminar. the groups, including al harmain, are invited to participate. we want to have a government contingent. is that permissible under your theory? >> what the university is doing is providing services. it could be designated or prosecuted -- >> how is providing services putting on a seminar in your view? >> the treasury or the u.s. attorney would be the one to decide whether to prosecute. what the supreme court held is, this is not a ground for making

a challenge against the executive order program. remember that. if there is a specific circumstance, if we have the government doing something against mikaso, it might be able to make supreme court arguments. the supreme court holding is on point. they cannot make this kind of challenge. that is why it is not recognizable. >> they are saying something specific. they want to co-sponsor event. do you think that is a permissible or impermissible action? >> there is a standing in the supreme court. we want to train them in helping them speak before the united nations. the supreme court rejected the notion that you can challenge this as the professor was.

once more, if mikaso or the university of oregon does do this or the government acts against it on this basis, we might have a first amendment issue. >> the chilling question is the first amendment. we do not force people into activities that the government sees as questionable and then prosecute them. >> these arguments have been rejected. this is settled. what the professor is saying is that this is different because those involved were u.s. persons aiding or an organization. we are pointing out the exact same thing. they wish to provide to a foreign organization. the cases are not distinguishable at all. distinguishable at all. the questions you a