Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (Terrorism, SCOTUS, 2010)
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
The Facts
The Humanitarian Law Project and others challenged federal law criminalizing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment. Plaintiffs claimed they sought only to provide lawful humanitarian and political advice to organizations like the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Ninth Circuit had partially struck down the statute as vague; the Supreme Court reversed.
The Issue
Whether the material support statute's prohibition on providing "training," "expert advice or assistance," and "service" to designated foreign terrorist organizations is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment. • Whether the statute violates the First Amendment by criminalizing protected speech.
The Rules
Prohibits knowingly providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, including training, expert advice, service, and financial support.
The material support statute does not violate the First Amendment when applied to bar speech that is coordinated with and specifically tailored to the activities of designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The Application
The statute's prohibition applied to the Humanitarian Law Project's proposed conduct because the statute targets material support coordinated with a designated foreign terrorist organization, regardless of whether the advice itself, legal training, humanitarian assistance, political counseling, would be lawful if provided to any other entity. The plaintiffs' core argument, that they sought only to facilitate the lawful, peaceful activities of the PKK and LTTE, could not overcome the statute's categorical ban on expert advice and training directed to designated organizations, which the Court found provides material support by freeing up the organization's resources for other purposes. The Court concluded the statute's language ('material support,' 'training,' 'expert advice') gave fair notice of the conduct it prohibited and that the government's compelling interest in combating terrorism justified the incidental burden on speech, even speech coordinated with a First Amendment claim. The decision treated the coordination with a designated FTO as converting speech into conduct subject to regulation, rather than pure speech entitled to full First Amendment protection.
The Conclusion
**The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the material support statute as neither unconstitutionally vague nor a violation of the First Amendment.** The Court held that the statute's language provides adequate notice and that the government's interest in preventing terrorism justifies the incidental burden on protected speech. The decision prioritized national security concerns over the plaintiffs' claimed expressive activities.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court upheld provisions of the Material Support to Terrorists statute, rejecting First Amendment challenges to restrictions on aid to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
Facts
The Humanitarian Law Project and others challenged federal law criminalizing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment. Plaintiffs claimed they sought only to provide lawful humanitarian and political advice to organizations like the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Ninth Circuit had partially struck down the statute as vague; the Supreme Court reversed.
Issue
Whether the First Amendment prohibits Congress from criminalizing the provision of expert advice and training to foreign terrorist organizations designated under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, even when the advice and training concern lawful, peaceable activity.
Rule
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), held that the material support statute (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) may constitutionally prohibit speech-like activities, training, expert advice, and personnel, coordinated with or directed to a designated foreign terrorist organization. The Court applied a heightened form of scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny because the speech was directed to a foreign terrorist organization, treating it as conduct that could provide material support regardless of the speaker's peaceful intent.
Analysis
The statute's prohibition applied to the Humanitarian Law Project's proposed conduct because the statute targets material support *coordinated with* a designated foreign terrorist organization, regardless of whether the advice itself, legal training, humanitarian assistance, political counseling, would be lawful if provided to any other entity. The plaintiffs' core argument. That they sought only to facilitate the lawful, peaceful activities of the PKK and LTTE. Could not overcome the statute's categorical ban on expert advice and training directed to designated organizations, which the Court found provides material support by freeing up the organization's resources for other purposes. The Court concluded the statute's language ("material support," "training," "expert advice") gave fair notice of the conduct it prohibited and that the government's compelling interest in combating terrorism justified the incidental burden on speech, even speech coordinated with a First Amendment claim. The decision treated the coordination with a designated FTO as converting speech into conduct subject to regulation, rather than pure speech entitled to full First Amendment protection.
Conclusion
**The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the material support statute as neither unconstitutionally vague nor a violation of the First Amendment.** The Court held that the statute's language provides adequate notice and that the government's interest in preventing terrorism justifies the incidental burden on protected speech. The decision prioritized national security concerns over the plaintiffs' claimed expressive activities.
Notes
561 U.S. 1 (2010)
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support