This argument fails because the DAO is an entity unto itself that, through its voting members, has demonstrated an agreement to a common purpose.
Argument: Smart Contracts are not property
... OFAC’s definition of property encompasses “contracts of any nature whatsoever,” and—as other courts have recognized—smart contracts are merely a code-enabled species of unilateral contracts.
The judge went on to compare smart contracts to vending machines. lol
Argument: Smart Contracts are speech and fall under the 1st Amendment
Plaintiffs have not shown that the government’s action in any way implicates the First Amendment.
I wonder what makes a smart contract different from one in a doc file? Legally I mean. A smart contract's code that executes when something happenes seems like it should be treated the same as any software code. But the actual content of the contract seems to me to be just an agreement.
Like the difference between the words I'm typing here and the code that renders the comment.
I think the problem here is mostly hinges on the existence of the DAO which I'm super ignorant of but assume lords over the smart contract. It doesn't exist like words or code do in isolation. The judge seems to think it exists like a contract any organization might have.
Argument: Tornado Cash is not an entity
Argument: Smart Contracts are not property
Argument: Smart Contracts are speech and fall under the 1st Amendment