Sheldon
Senior Member
- Apr 2, 2010
- 5,213
- 1,431
- 48
Not sure how I feel about this yet.
Here's the html of the Court's opinion:
08-1498 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (06/21/2010)
cut
cut
cut
It seems weird that this is the same court that handed down the Citizens United case. Their reading of the First in that case showed a mistrust of restrictions on political speech, but they didn't seem to apply that same mistrust to this case.
Should an American citizen (or group of) be allowed to provide aid to groups on the government's list of terrorist groups? My first impression is to say that a categorical "no" wouldn't square with political speech and freedom of assembly protected by the First. And I'm with plaintiffs about their claim that "aid" is too vague. But there's probably more to this than meets the eye.
Here's the html of the Court's opinion:
08-1498 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (06/21/2010)
Congress has prohibited the provision of material support or resources to certain foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity. 18 U. S. C. ง2339B(a)(1).That prohibition is based on a finding that the specified organizations are so tainted by their criminal conductthat any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct. Antiterrorism and Effective Death PenaltyAct of 1996 (AEDPA), ง301(a)(7), 110 Stat. 1247, notefollowing 18 U. S. C. ง2339B (Findings and Purpose). The plaintiffs in this litigation seek to provide support to two such organizations.
cut
Congress has amended the definition of material support or resources periodically, but at present it is defined as follows:[T]he term material support or resources means anyproperty, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities,weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself),and transportation, except medicine or religious maญterials. ง2339A(b)(1); see also ง2339B(g)(4)
cut
The authority to designate an entity a foreign terrorist organization rests with the Secretary of State. 8 U. S. C.งง1189(a)(1), (d)(4). She may, in consultation with theSecretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, so designate an organization upon finding that it is foreign,engages in terrorist activity or terrorism, and therebythreatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States. งง1189(a)(1),(d)(4). [N]ational security means the national defense,foreign relations, or economic interests of the UnitedStates. ง1189(d)(2)
cut
As relevant here, plaintiffs claimed that the material support statute was unconstitutional on two grounds:First, it violated their freedom of speech and freedom ofassociation under the First Amendment, because it crimiญnalized their provision of material support to the PKK andthe LTTE, without requiring the Government to provethat plaintiffs had a specific intent to further the unlawfulends of those organizations. Id., at 1184. Second, plainญtiffs argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
It seems weird that this is the same court that handed down the Citizens United case. Their reading of the First in that case showed a mistrust of restrictions on political speech, but they didn't seem to apply that same mistrust to this case.
Should an American citizen (or group of) be allowed to provide aid to groups on the government's list of terrorist groups? My first impression is to say that a categorical "no" wouldn't square with political speech and freedom of assembly protected by the First. And I'm with plaintiffs about their claim that "aid" is too vague. But there's probably more to this than meets the eye.
