News, Editorials, and Opinions about Supreme Court’s June 21, 2010 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision

Printer-friendly version

Released on June 21, 2010, the Supreme Court’s Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) decision will have an adverse impact on the efforts of U.S. groups working on peacebuilding, conflict resolution and other activities in places where listed terrorist groups operate.   Below are news articles and editorials from major media publications, press releases and opinions from civil rights and civil liberty experts, including David Cole, the attorney representing HLP in the case. Background about the case is available here.

       Video

• 7 minute video from Russia Today TV featuring Ralph Fertig: “This law, for the first time in the history of the United States, makes a crime out of pure speech that is aimed at peaceful non-violent lawful conduct.”

       First reads

• New York Times editorial: A Bruise on the First Amendment (CALLS FOR INTENT STANDARD)
• UPI article: U.S. Supreme Court: Humanitarian groups assessing impact of terror decision (WITH INTERESTING STATE DEPT. INTERPRETATION OF RULING)
• Kay Guinane’s blog on Huffington Post: The Supreme Court: Working for Peace Is a Prosecutable Offense
• Op-ed from Scott Atran, an anthropologist at France’s National Center for Scientific Research and Robert Axelrod political science and public policy professor at Michigan: Why We Talk to Terrorists

       Editorials

• Washington Post: The Supreme Court goes too far in the name of fighting terrorism 
• Chicago Tribune: How the 'material support' law promotes terrorism
  
• USA Today: Court chills free speech
• Lexington Herald-Leader: Free speech and logic under attack
   
  Commentary
   
• David Cole, attorney for HLP: Advocacy Is Not a Gun
• David Cole: The Robert’s Court Free Speech Problem
• Steve Vladeck, national security/terrorim legal expert: Closer to Guilt by Association
• Mohamed Elibiary, President of Freedom & Justice Foundation: Verdict misinterprets 'material support'
  
• American Constitution Society (ACS): Supreme Court Upholds “Material Support” Law Against Constitutional Challenges
• Andy Carl, Executive Director of Conciliation Resources: Ending wars peacefully just got harder
• Nat Parry, political author: Court's Dual Standards on Free Speech
• Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago: 'Material Support' and the First Amendment
• Jon Carrol of the San Franscico Chronicle: Worried are the peacemakers
• Jamie Rowen of the San Franscico Chronicle: Supreme Court should remember Mandela
• Adam Serwer of The American Prospect: CENTCOM Red Team Contemplates "Materially Supporting Terrorism."
• Washington Post, Letter to the Editors: Irony in ban on support for terrorism, U.S. funds reaching warlords
•  Joanne Mariner, Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program Director at Human Rights Watch: Talking to Terrorists: The Worst U.S. Supreme Court Decision of the Term
  
• Nat Hentoff is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute: Court in Contempt of First Amendment
• Lisa Schirch, Director of the 3D Security Initiative: Supreme Court Ruling Impacts Peacebuilding in Afghanistan
   

       News

• Jurist: Supreme Court upholds law criminalizing material support for terror organization
• The Chronicle of Philanthropy: Supreme Court Decision Delivers Blow to Human-Rights and Aid Groups

• ACLU press release: Court Upholds Broad Interpretation Of Anti-Terrorism Law That Inhibits Work Of Humanitarian Groups  

• Jason Trahan of the Dallas Moring News: Statute used to prosecute Holy Land Foundation upheld by Supreme Court
• Constitution Project’s Press Release: Ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project Upholds Broad Application of Material Support Laws to Prohibit Even Pure Speech That Furthers Lawful Ends