material support

Event Recap: A Briefing on What's at Stake in the Supreme Court Case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

in
Date: 
February 18, 2010

On Feb. 17, 2010 the Charity and Security Network teamed with the Constitution Project  to host a briefing on the Supreme Court case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which held oral arguments on Feb. 23.  The case is the first constitutional challenge to provisions of federal laws, including the Patriot Act, prohibiting “material support” for groups designated a “terrorist” by the United States government. The event, Free Speech, Human Rights & Counter-Terrorism Laws, explored the likely impact and misconceptions of the Court's ruling on national security policies. 

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument To Decide if Parts of Patriot Act Violate First Amendment

in
Date: 
February 24, 2010

On Feb. 23, 2010, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether parts of the Patriot Act that prohibit supporting a designated terrorist group to pursue peacebuilding programs violate the Constitution. David D. Cole, a lawyer for people and groups challenging the law in the case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), said the law prevented them from exercising their First Amendment rights. “It is core political speech on issues of public concern,” Cole told the court. “It is advocating only lawful, peaceable activities. This court has never upheld the criminal prohibition of lawful speech on issues of public concern.” Citing previous cases where the Supreme Court’s opinions had distinguished “between aid that is intended to further lawful activity and aid that is intended to further illegal activity,” [18] Cole said the government should focus on prosecuting individuals intending to further a terrorist organization’s violent and illegal activities, rather than target activists who encourage peaceful political solutions.  A ruling in the case is expected by late June or early July.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: Addressing the Impact of Material Support Laws on Peacebuilding Programs

in
Date: 
February 15, 2010

On Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010 at 10 a.m. the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) to determine whether several key terms in the definition of prohibited material support of terrorism violate the First and Fifth amendments.  The case marks the first ever challenge to the Patriot Act at the Supreme Court level and addresses the overbroad scope of the prohibition on "material support" to listed terrorist organizations, which effectively criminalizes peacebuilding programs of U.S. organizations in conflict zones around the world. 

Litigation: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: Addressing the Impact of Material Support Laws on Peacebuilding Programs

in
Date: 
February 15, 2010

On Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010 at 10 a.m. the Supreme Court will hear a one hour oral argument for Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) to determine whether several key terms in the definition of prohibited material support of terrorism violate the First and Fifth amendments.  The case marks the first ever challenge to the Patriot Act at the Supreme Court level and addresses the overbroad scope of the prohibition on "material support" to listed terrorist organizations, which effectively criminalizes peacebuilding programs of U.S. organizations in conflict zones around the world. 

Analysis: Legal Roadblocks for U.S. Famine Relief to Somalia Creating Humanitarian Crisis

in
Date: 
January 27, 2010

The unfolding crisis in Somalia illustrates a common dilemma U.S. nonprofits face when trying to conduct humanitarian operations in territory controlled by an organization listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). The humanitarian imperative to provide urgently needed food to nearly one million people in an area controlled by al-Shabab, a listed SDGT, conflicts with the “strict liability” standard against supporting terrorists that even has State Department employees fearing sanctions from Treasury. Now the United States government (USG) response to the famine in Somalia is forcing it to confront the same onerous hurdles current national security laws create for nonprofits.   

Legal Roadblocks for U.S. Famine Relief to Somalia Creating Humanitarian Crisis

in
Date: 
January 27, 2010

The unfolding crisis in Somalia illustrates a common dilemma U.S. nonprofits face when trying to conduct humanitarian operations in territory controlled by an organization listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). The humanitarian imperative to provide urgently needed food to nearly one million people in an area controlled by al-Shabab, a listed SDGT, conflicts with the “strict liability” standard against supporting terrorists that even has State Department employees fearing sanctions from Treasury. Now the United States government (USG) response to the famine in Somalia is forcing it to confront the same onerous hurdles current national security laws create for nonprofits.    

Initial Supreme Court Briefs Filed in Humanitarian Law Project Case

in
Date: 
November 25, 2009

On Nov. 16, 2009, opening briefs were filed by several parties in the Supreme Court case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP).  In the first ever challenge to a provision of the Patriot Act at the Supreme Court, the case contests the constitutionality of the law that makes it criminal to provide certain “material support,” including peaceful mediation, for groups designated as a terrorist by the U.S. government.  Filing a brief on behalf of HLP, a human rights group, and other plaintiffs, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) claims the law making speech advocating nonviolent activity a crime violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Report: Constitution Project Calls for Reform of Material Support Laws

in
Date: 
November 24, 2009

The Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Committee released a report on Nov. 17, 2009 calling for reform of U.S. laws barring "material support" of terrorism, proposing eight changes to "remedy serious First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns created by existing federal law." The bipartisan committee of experts, scholars and former government officials said the law should protect "pure speech furthering lawful ends" and due process rights of U.S. organizations that wish to challenge executive branch listing them as a terrorist organization. 

House Committee Reins In Patriot Act Provisions; Calls Made for Hearing on Amending Material Support Statute

in
Date: 
November 6, 2009

After two days of debate, the House Judiciary Committee gave its stamp of approval to legislation that would reauthorize two of the three expiring Patriot Act provisions related to counter terrorism investigations. Passed by a vote of 16-10, the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845)  is preferred by many civil liberty and privacy advocates to the version passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Additionally, discussion led by Representative Sheila  Jackson-Lee (D-TX) of expanding the humanitarian exemption to the material support statute to include items such as food, water or conflict resolution training led to the request for a hearing to explore the matter further. 

The USA PATRIOT Act, Material Support and the Humanitarian Imperative: The Need for a Humanitarian Exemption

in
Date: 
October 16, 2009

Laws that prohibit "material support" to listed terrorist organizations only exempt religious materials and medicine. That means medical services or non-medicinal necessities such as clean water are prohibited, as are tents, blankets, food and more. In other words, it is legal to give someone a pill, but illegal to provide clean water for swallowing it. There is no justification for this ongoing blockade of humanitarian aid.