A U.S. district court judge has blocked enforcement of punitive measures against a pro-Palestinian nonprofit under investigation by Attorney General Jason Miyares.

In an Oct. 7 oral ruling and Oct. 17 written opinion, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said Miyares’ push to obtain donor lists from American Muslims for Palestine is overly broad and likely violates the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association. 

The temporary injunction and restraining order block Richmond Circuit Court Judge Devika Davis’ Sept. 29 ruling holding the charity in contempt for not handing over its donor lists. Davis had ordered a $1,000 daily fine until AMP turned over the documents to the attorney general’s office. 

Miyares vowed to appeal. 

“Charitable organizations operating in Virginia have an obligation to follow the law,” Miyares’ spokesperson Shaun Kenney said in a statement Monday. 

Brinkema’s ruling comes in the midst of a tight election between Miyares and Democrat Jay Jones. It’s not clear if Jones, whose campaign was upended by the revelation of incendiary text messages from 2022, would continue to prosecute the case if he wins. His spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment Monday. 

The investigation 

Miyares publicly announced his investigation into the group on Oct. 29, 2023, three weeks after Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing nearly 1,200 people and sparking an ongoing conflict that has left over 70,000 Palestinians dead and unleashed a humanitarian crisis. 

In legal filings, news releases and an appearance on Fox Business, Miyares accused AMP of failing to register with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. He also claimed funds raised by the group may have been funneled to “terrorist organizations,” without providing evidence to back up the claim. 

In the Fox appearance, Miyares appeared to connect the group to Hamas. 

“Hamas is a known terrorist organization, designated by the European Union and our United States government,” Miyares said. “So our job is to get to the truth.” 

On its website, AMP says it aims to advance “the movement for justice in Palestine by educating the American public about Palestine.” The group described Miyares’ initial accusations as a “defamatory and dangerous smear” and accused him of “attempting to score political points with hateful extremists.” 

Using a legal tool called a civil investigative demand, the attorney general’s office sought a range of documents, including rosters of the group’s employees, meeting minutes, banking documents and lists of the group’s donors and members of its email lists. 

Legal representatives for American Muslims for Palestine acknowledged they had overlooked Virginia’s registration requirements and registered with the state in November 2023, turning over some of the documents demanded by Miyares’ office the following month. 

But the fight over the donor lists has proved to be contentious. In July, the Virginia Court of Appeals rejected AMP’s petition to prevent immediate enforcement of Miyares’ demand, though it has yet to issue a ruling in the case and did not elaborate on its reasoning. In legal filings in September, the attorney general’s office accused AMP of embarking on a “meritless and lengthy campaign to evade, delay and obstruct” the OAG’s investigation and asked Judge Davis to sanction the group. 

AMP filed its federal petition Sept. 26 asking the court to block enforcement of parts of Miyares’ demand until questions of its constitutionality were fully resolved. Brinkema held a hearing Oct. 3 and made a ruling from the bench the same day granting the group’s request. She also ordered AMP to post an $8,000 bond. 

In her opinion, Brinkema argued that without the injunction, AMP would be forced to either pay hefty fines or turn over sensitive documents. 

“Given AMP’s likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its free association claim, choosing this path would likely result in irreparable injury because once the attorney general has access to the donor lists, AMP cannot un-ring the bell, even if an appellate court later found that the demand for AMP’s donor lists was constitutionally infirm,” Brinkema said. 

Christina Jump, AMP’s lead attorney on the case, said Miyares was attempting to force the group to hand over the documents before constitutional questions had been litigated — a move she said sent a chilling message to nonprofits and businesses. 

“It’s the top legal officer for Virginia trying to sidestep the law,” Jump said. 

Pro-Israel politics

Miyares has made his support for Israel an important pillar of his political brand. 

The Republican traveled to Israel twice in 2023, meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog in a March visit and, in November, visiting sites of the Oct. 7 attack and speaking with survivors. 

The attorney general’s office encouraged local law enforcement to donate surplus gear to Israel, inviting the press to observe helmets, vests and protective plates being loaded into a truck outside his office. He also sent a letter to the state’s higher education leaders encouraging them to “promote public safety and ensure viewpoint diversity” amid student protests against the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip. 

Miyares’ investigation against AMP comes as the group has faced at least five recent federal lawsuits that attempt to hold it liable for the actions of pro-Palestinian protesters or Hamas. 

Those accusations have yet to be sustained in court. 

One case cited by Miyares, Boim v. American Muslims for Palestine, attempts to hold the group liable for Hamas’ murder of David Boim, claiming it is an “alter ego” of a defunct nonprofit that a federal judge found liable for Boim’s death. The case has been litigated since 2017 and is in the discovery phase. 

In another case, a group of survivors of the Oct. 7 attack as well as family and friends of the victims sued the group for allegedly violating U.S. terrorism laws and providing material support to Hamas. But Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, writing in an Aug. 15 opinion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any connection between AMP and the attacks. 

“Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege even prior knowledge of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, much less intentional aid that substantially furthered the tort,” Alston wrote. 

This story originally appeared on VirginiaMercury.com.