First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
print this   Print         E-mail this article  E-mail this article

Court to hear case on material support for terrorists

By Tony Mauro
First Amendment Center legal correspondent

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to review parts of the Patriot Act and other laws that make it a crime to give “material support” including training and “expert advice” to designated terrorist organizations.

Humanitarian groups and individuals have challenged the law on First Amendment and other grounds, claiming its vagueness keeps them from providing nonviolent dispute resolution and human rights advocacy training, and chills their right to associate. The issue will be argued early next year in companion cases Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project and Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder.

“The material support law resurrects guilt by association and makes it a crime for a human rights group in the U.S. to provide human rights training,” said Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole, who represents those challenging the law before the high court. “We don’t make the country safer by criminalizing those who advocate nonviolent means for resolving disputes. The Supreme Court should make clear that only those who intend to further the illegal ends of an organization can be punished.”

The case began even before the Patriot Act and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 gave the secretary of state the power to designate terrorist organizations, and banned material support to those groups. Soon after the law passed, 30 organizations were tagged as terrorist, including the groups involved in the current case: the PKK, which advocates establishing a Kurdish state in Turkey, and the Tamil Tigers, which seeks creation of an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka.

The lawsuit against the statute was brought by groups and individuals who wanted to support what they said were the lawful and nonviolent activities of both groups. They won a ruling in 1998 finding the law unconstitutionally vague.

As the case proceeded, Congress amended the law to clarify or expand its provisions, including in the 2001 Patriot Act, which added “expert advice or assistance” to the list of prohibited activities. The law was amended again in 2004, but each time, judges have struck down parts of the law.

Cole says that in six separate decisions over the 11-year history of the case, every court has found some parts of the law unconstitutional. Before the Supreme Court, Cole claims that several terms in the law such as “training” and “expert advice or assistance” are unclear and vague, and could apply to a range of legal activities that have nothing to do with terrorism. He also asserts that the law violates the freedom of association because criminal liability depends on which organization receives the advice or support.

“Just as a statute prohibiting the provision of advice to the Communist Party but permitting the provision of advice to the Democratic Party would be penalizing association, so too this provision penalizes association,” Cole wrote in his brief to the Court.

In a counter-brief before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan defends the law as a “vital part of the nation’s effort to fight international terrorism.”

She asserts that the law is not vague, stating that each of the challenged terms “is readily understandable by persons of ordinary intelligence.” Kagan adds that the law “regulates conduct, not speech, and does not violate the First Amendment in any of its applications.”

Justices skeptical of anti-terror speech rules
By Tony Mauro Government's assertion in Holder case that filing legal briefs might constitute 'material support' for terrorists appears to shock bench. 02.24.10


High court to examine anti-terrorism law

Justices agree to review 9th Circuit ruling that portions of law, which criminalizes providing 'material support or resources' to designated terrorist groups, are unconstitutional. 09.30.09

High court weighs conflicting values of speech, safety

Justice Kennedy acknowledges difficulty of case brought by humanitarian groups who claim anti-terror law violates their rights. 02.23.10

Provocative docket raises hackles over animals, religion

By Tony Mauro Justices also will hear cases involving campaign finance, bankruptcy-lawyer speech. 09.29.09

2009-10 Supreme Court case tracker

Patriot Act

Analysis/Commentary summary page
View the latest analysis and commentary throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

Last system update: Friday, April 23, 2010 | 13:01:00
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
How to contribute
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

Religious liberty in public schools
First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links