| Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 23, 2010 Decided June 24, 2010 |
||||||
| Full case name | Holder et al. v. Humanitarian Law Project et al. | |||||
| Docket nos. | 08-1498 | |||||
| Citations | 561 U.S. ___(2010) | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The federal government may prohibit providing non-violent material support for terrorist organizations, including legal services and advice, without violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito | |||||
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. I; 18 U.S.C. §2339B | ||||||
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. ____ (2010), was a case decided in June 2010 by the United States Supreme Court regarding the USA PATRIOT Act (18 U. S. C. §2339B) which prohibits material support to groups designated as terrorists. The court held that a prohibition of these types of support - “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel” - were constitutional as applied to the forms of support that plaintiffs in the case, represented by the Humanitarian Law Project, sought to provide to foreign terrorist organizations. The court noted that the proposed actions of the Humanitarian Law Project were general and "entirely hypothetical," implying that a post-enforcement challenge to the application of the 'material support' provisions is not foreclosed. The plaintiffs sought to help the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam learn means of peacefully resolving conflicts.[1]
This case represents the only time in U.S. First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has passed the Strict scrutiny test.[2]
Contents |
Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the decision, arguing that "The 'material support law' - which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism - actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom."[3]
Elisabeth Decrey-Warner, president of the Swiss NGO Geneva Call also expressed her disapproval, stating that "Civilians caught in the middle of conflicts and hoping for peace will suffer from this decision. How can you start peace talks or negotiations if you don’t have the right to speak to both parties?"[4]
In January 2011, David Cole, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, who argued the case for the Humanitarian Law Project, commented on developments since the decision. He noted that several prominent former officeholders, including Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Ridge, had spoken in support of the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian opposition group designated by the United States as a terrorist organization.[5] He stated that he supported their right to speak but that even nonviolent advocacy (such as urging that a designation as "terrorist" be revoked) was illegal under the Supreme Court's decision.[5] He also pointed to exemptions granted under the rubric of "humanitarian aid" that turned out to include products like cigarettes and chewing gum.[5] He stated: "Under current law, it seems, the right to make profits is more sacrosanct than the right to petition for peace, and the need to placate American businesses more compelling than the need to provide food and shelter to earthquake victims and war refugees."[5]
Linguist Noam Chomsky criticized the decision as an issue of freedom of speech and stated that it constituted "the first major attack on freedom of speech in the United States since the notorious Smith Act back around 1940".[6] He also stated that it had troubling legal implications since Humanitarian Law Project gave out advice to Turkish PKK which urged the group to pursue nonviolence.[7]
Representatives of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement stated that the ruling would probably not affect their operations or their relationship with the American government.[4]
In September 2010 the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided activists in Minneapolis and Chicago, seizing computers, cell phones and files and issuing subpoenas to some targeted individuals to appear before a federal grand jury. The FBI agents were seeking evidence of ties to foreign terrorist organizations, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.[8][9] Attorneys linked the raids to the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision.[10][11]