material support

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.

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. 

Charity and Security Network Principles to Guide New Policies

in

The following ten principles should guide the U.S. government's approach to fixing national security rules and policies that create problems for legitimate charities, development programs, grantmakers, peacebuilding efforts, human rights advocacy and faith-based organizations:

Time to Update Bush's EO 13224

in
Date: 
October 15, 2009
Author: 
Kay Guinane

Sept. 23, 2009 was the eighth anniversary of Executive Order (EO) 13224, signed by President George W. Bush to declare a national emergency after the 9/11 attacks. The EO authorized the Department of Treasury (Treasury) to freeze all U.S. assets of 27 individuals and entities listed as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” (SDGTs) and to list additional SDGTs. It also invoked a law that allows the President to bar transactions involving donations, food, clothing, and medicine and other articles “intended to be used to relieve human suffering,” when the President finds donations would “seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency,” are coerced or would endanger U.S. armed forces. This has denied critical aid to many in need. Now, eight years later, it is time to reassess this position and determine whether this bar on aid does the U.S. more harm than good.

Court: Penalizing Humanitarian Aid is Unconstitutional

in
Date: 
January 13, 2008

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a ruling declaring the statute making it a crime to provide "material support or resources" to any group designated a "foreign terrorist organization" as unconstitutional. The decision reaffirmed that previous attempts to adjust the statute failed to do so.

Supreme Court to Consider Whether Definition of Prohibited Material Support Too Vague

in
Date: 
October 1, 2009

On Sept. 30, 2009 the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether several key terms in the definition of prohibited material support of terrorism are unconstitutionally vague. The case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) will have a one hour oral argument scheduled for the winter of 2010 and a decision is expected by June. Although a decision requiring more specific definitions would greatly benefit many charitable operations, which can be constrained by uncertainty over what the law does or does not allow, the case will not result in a humanitarian exemption to the law. That issue is not before the court. Congress, however, is in a position to address it.

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. 

A Hungry Child Knows No Politics: 2008 ACS Report Calls for Reform of Material Support Laws

in
Date: 
April 23, 2010
Author: 
Suraj K. Sazawal

A June 2008 Issue Brief from the American Constitution Society outlines the unintended consequence of the “material support” laws that impede, and in some cases, entirely prevent, the distribution of critical humanitarian assistance in certain areas of the world. Recounting his personal experience in Sri Lanka immediately after the tsunami of December 2004, Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrant rights and national security for the ACLU of Southern California, demonstrates how the material support laws can undermine relief efforts. 

Multimedia resources for the Supreme Court case: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

in
Date: 
March 9, 2010

On Feb. 23, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP). At issue is the constitutionality of a provision in the USA Patriot Act that makes it a crime to provide “material support or resources” to any group that the government has labeled as a terrorist organization.

The Constitution Project and Charity and Security Network held a panel event where speakers discussed the case in regards to the First Amendment’s free speech provision and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. This event was broadcast on C-SPAN.

On March 4, The Kojo Nnamdi Show, a live two-hour magazine program on WAMU 88.5 based in Washington D.C, featured a discussion surrounding the issues involved in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project case.  The full transcript from that program is available here.

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.