Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

2010-06-21

Headline: Court upholds federal ban on providing coordinated training, expert advice, personnel, or services to designated foreign terrorist groups while protecting independent advocacy.

Holding: The Court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is constitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, permitting prosecution for providing coordinated training, expert advice, personnel, or services to designated foreign terrorist organizations while excluding independent advocacy.

Real World Impact:

Permits prosecution for providing coordinated training, advice, personnel, or services to designated terrorist groups.
Clarifies that independent advocacy for a group is generally not covered.
Relies on Congressional findings and Government national-security evidence in terrorism cases.

Topics: supporting terrorist groups, speech and association limits, national security, foreign policy effects

Summary

Background

The plaintiffs are two U.S. citizens and six domestic groups, including the Humanitarian Law Project, who said they wanted to give legal training, teach dispute-resolution through international law, and engage in political advocacy for the PKK and the LTTE—groups the State Department designated as foreign terrorist organizations in 1997. Congress had made it a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B to provide “material support,” and over time added and defined terms such as “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel.” The case wound through district and appellate courts for years and returned to the Supreme Court after statutory clarifications by Congress in 2001 and 2004.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the law, as applied to the plaintiffs’ stated activities, violates the Constitution by being vague or by banning speech and association. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed reading that would require proof of a specific intent to further terrorist acts. It held that the statute is clear enough as applied here: “training” means teaching a specific skill, “expert advice” means specialized knowledge, and “personnel” requires providing individuals under an organization’s direction or control. The Court emphasized that independent advocacy—speaking or writing on behalf of a cause without coordination with the group—is not covered. The majority gave weight to Congress’s findings and the Government affidavit explaining how coordinated support can aid terrorist groups.

Real world impact

People and groups who wish to give coordinated, directed training or expert help to designated terrorist organizations risk criminal prosecution. Lawyers, advocates, and NGOs remain free to speak, write, and independently advocate on issues even if sympathetic to those groups. The ruling resolves the parties’ claims now, but it does not foreclose different outcomes in future cases with different facts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer (joined by two Justices) dissented on the First Amendment point: he would read the statute narrowly to require that the defendant know or intend their speech or association would significantly assist the group’s unlawful terrorist aims, and he would protect coordinated teaching and advocacy unless that mens rea were proved.