United States v. Amirnazmi
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9741, 645 F.3d 564, 2011 WL 1815966 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is a constitutional delegation of authority from Congress to the President to define and criminalize conduct, as it provides an intelligible principle and is meaningfully constrained. An agency's interpretive regulation that narrows a statutory exemption is permissible when Congress is aware of the long-standing interpretation and does not act to amend it.
Facts:
- Ali Amirnazmi, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen and chemical engineer, founded TranTech Consultants, Inc., which developed a dynamic software program called ChemPlan.
- Starting in the mid-1990s, Amirnazmi began exploring business partnerships with Iranian entities with the stated goal of transforming Iran into a "chemical powerhouse."
- In 1997, TranTech and the state-owned National Petrochemical Company of Iran (NPC) executed a license agreement for ChemPlan for $64,000, and Amirnazmi later procured other U.S.-made software for NPC.
- In September 2006, Amirnazmi met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and expressed his desire to transfer ChemPlan's technical knowledge to Iran.
- In 2007 and 2008, Amirnazmi signed agreements with other Iranian companies, IBACO and NITD, to provide technology for proposed chemical plants and to create a joint venture to transfer the ChemPlan system to a new company in Iran.
- Upon returning from trips to Iran in April and June of 2008, U.S. Customs agents questioned Amirnazmi, who falsely claimed the trips were solely to visit his mother and disavowed any commercial purpose.
- After being questioned, Amirnazmi contacted the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) hotline to make general inquiries about U.S. trade restrictions with Iran but did not disclose the specifics of his business dealings.
- Federal agents later questioned Amirnazmi, who again denied conducting business in Iran before a search of his business premises revealed documents detailing his activities.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. government filed a ten-count indictment against Amirnazmi in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, later adding three more counts in a superseding indictment.
- Amirnazmi filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss, arguing IEEPA was an unconstitutional delegation of power and that some charges were barred by the statute of limitations; the district court denied the motion.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Amirnazmi on ten counts, including four IEEPA violations, three counts of making false statements, and three counts of bank fraud.
- Amirnazmi filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial, reiterating his constitutional and evidentiary arguments.
- The District Court denied both post-trial motions and sentenced Amirnazmi to a 48-month term of imprisonment.
- Amirnazmi timely appealed the judgment of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the President to define and criminalize conduct in violation of the nondelegation doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Scirica, Circuit Judge
No, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority to the President. The Act withstands constitutional scrutiny because it meaningfully constrains the President's discretion by providing an intelligible principle for the executive branch to follow. The court reasoned that IEEPA requires the President to first declare a national emergency based on an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' originating abroad. The President's authority is further limited by statutory exemptions, a requirement that criminal violations be 'willful,' and procedural mandates for consulting with and reporting to Congress, which retains the ultimate power to terminate the emergency. The court also rejected the argument that Congress's failure to hold periodic oversight meetings invalidated the delegation, noting that in the area of foreign affairs, congressional inaction is not to be equated with disapproval, and Congress had, in fact, subsequently passed other legislation that ratified the sanctions against Iran. The court further held that the OFAC regulation narrowing the 'informational materials' exemption was a permissible agency interpretation and was not unconstitutionally vague, particularly due to IEEPA's 'willfulness' requirement for criminal liability.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutionality of IEEPA, a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, by affirming the broad deference granted to presidential authority in matters of national security. The ruling reinforces the principle that a congressional delegation of power is valid as long as it provides an 'intelligible principle,' even if that principle is broad, especially in foreign affairs. The court's acceptance of subsequent congressional ratification as a substitute for mandated periodic oversight provides a powerful tool for the executive branch to maintain long-standing emergency sanctions. The decision also affirms the significant interpretive power of agencies like OFAC, establishing that their long-standing regulations narrowing statutory exemptions will be upheld so long as Congress does not explicitly act to overturn them.
