can issue a blocking order against any person within the United States or elsewhere. And, of course, OFAC does so without warning. There certainly is no “long history of judicial and public acceptance.” Camara, 387 U.S. at 537, 87 S.Ct. 1727. Relatedly, unlike in the school and probation cases, in which those persons who conduct the search or seizure also are entrusted with protecting the targeted person’s interests, OFAC is not at all tasked with protecting the interests of the blocked entities. On the other side of the scale, the government’s interest in preventing terrorism and the funding of terrorism is extremely high. But the sensitive subject matter is no excuse for the dispensing altogether with domestic persons’ constitutional rights. Cf. Hamdi 542 U.S. 507, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (<HOLDING>). Rather, the dispositive question here is
holding that due process requires at a minimum an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner holding there is no meaningful distinction between due course and due process recognizing that the essential requisites of procedural due process are notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that due process required that a united states citizen being held as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest his detention holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard