On Feb. 27, 2009, ten advocacy groups filed a friend of the court brief in federal court in Ohio that expressed their support for due process rights for nonprofits accused of supporting terrorism. Filed in the case of Kindhearts Charitable Humanitarian Development (Kindhearts) v. Paulson, the brief focuses on the widespread negative impact overbroad counterterrorism rules have on charitable operations. The filing follows two pre-trial court rulings in the case that are favorable to due process rights for nonprofits. KindHeart's has been shut down since Feb. 19, 2006, when Treasury froze its bank accounts and seized all of its records, computers, and documents.

Executive Order 13224, signed by President Bush in 2001, grants the government broad authority to seize property "pending an investigation," with no deadline on when the investigation must end or property be returned. KindHearts filed suit in October 2008, asking the court to block the government from designating it as a supporter of terrorism. The court granted the request, saying the government cannot act "without first affording KindHearts with constitutionally adequate process," including notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest the basis for such a designation. On Jan. 30 a the court threw out a protective order that had prevented KindHearts' attorneys from getting copies of its files that were seized by the government in order to prepare their case.

The friend of the court brief took no position on the facts of KindHeart's case. Instead it gave the court background information on the broader impacts the government's overreaching policies that deny basic rights have on charitable programs. It states that the groups believe "the government's unconstitutional actions and policies, including the freezing of assets pending investigation, the use of vague and overbroad legal standards, the failure to provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity for a hearing to targeted NPOs, and the lack of robust judicial review" make it difficult or impossible for charities to mount a meaningful opposition to the accusations.

Fearing the possible arbitrary or mistaken action by the Department of Treasury, many charities have been forced to consider if they will continue or begin work in regions devastated by prolonged conflict, where terrorist organizations may be active. These barriers, according to the brief, "have created a climate of fear and intimidation among nonprofit organizations, discouraging them from doing their critical humanitarian work-particularly in conflict-torn regions that are most in need- for fear of being arbitrarily subjected to these actions and policies themselves."

The brief also says donors are discouraged from contributing out of fear their donations will be seized with no clear path for the money to be returned or directed toward related humanitarian work. If less aid work and money is being delivered, the roots of terrorism- poverty and injustice- will flourish and contribute to future acts of violence. “The government’s actions and policies are counterproductive to its efforts to counter terrorism because they discourage and undermine the vital work” of charities, the brief states.

 The brief was filed by a University of Texas Law School National Security Clinic professor and students and signed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Appleton Foundation, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the Defending Dissent Foundation, the Fund for Nonviolence, Grantmakers Without Borders, Grassroots International, Kinder USA, Muslim Advocates, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, OMB Watch and attorney Kay Guinane.