Index of Human Rights, Conflict Resolution and Nonprofit Sector Reports

Almost all of the reports featured on our website are indexed here. Many of the reports are linked to their full text, but for information on studies that are not linked, please contact us. 

 

Resources

Summary of the Supreme Court’ Ruling in Humanitarian Law Project: Provision of Advocacy and Training in Nonviolent Peaceful Conflict Resolution Violates Terrorism Material Support Laws

in
Date: 
August 31, 2010

On June 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, et al. struck a blow to the American nonprofit sectors’ commitment to resolving international conflicts through peaceful and nonviolent means. In a 6-3 decision, the Court rejected the Humanitarian Law Project's (HLP) claims that challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the material support to terrorism law that prohibit a broad range of interactions with listed terrorist groups, including attempts at peace building. (See 18 U.S.C. § 2339B). This summary reviews the Court’s majority and dissenting opinions and notes issues to be addressed in developing better procedures.

ACLU and CCR Challenge Constitutionality of OFAC’s Licensing Scheme for Legal Services

in
Date: 
August 16, 2010

On Aug. 3, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit challenging the regulatory scheme requiring attorneys to obtain permission from the Office of Asset Control (OFAC) to represent their clients. The plaintiffs seek to represent pro bono the father of a US citizen targeted for killing by the U.S. government.  

KindHearts Case Timeline

in
Date: 
July 9, 2010

On Aug. 18, 2009, a federal judge ruled the Treasury Department’s seizure of a charity’s assets without notice or means of appeal is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development was shut down by the Treasury Department "pending investigation" on Feb. 19, 2006.  To date it has not been designated as a supporter of terrorism. This timeline details the issues and procedural history of the case, which illustrates the problems created by using post 9/11 emergency measures for long term regulation of charities in the national security context.

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

in
Date: 
June 21, 2010

On June 21, 2010, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that bans support to designated terrorist organizations, even when that support involves using international law to resolve disputes through nonviolent means. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), the court ruled 6-3 that U.S. organizations and citizens teaching nonviolent methods of conflict resolution toward sanctioned terrorist groups could face criminal charges. David Cole, an attorney representing HLP and others in the case said, “We are deeply disappointed. The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists."

Summary of Decision in Al-Haramain v Obama (March 2010) Says U.S. Charity's Phones Were Illegally Wiretapped

in
Date: 
May 3, 2010

In a decision leaving Attorney General Holder and others in the Obama administration scratching their heads for next steps, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern Federal District of California ruled on March 31, 2010 that the Bush administration had illegally wire tapped phone conversations of an Islamic charity and two American lawyers without a warrant.

Kindhearts v. Treasury: Successfully Challenging the Constitutionality of Treasury Shutting Down a Charity

in
Date: 
November 24, 2009

The Aug. 18, 2009 federal court ruling in KindHearts v. Treasury is a positive step forward in the ongoing efforts of U.S. charities to make national security laws fair and ensure they protect vulnerable people that depend on charities for vital aid. The 100 page order found that the Department of Treasury's (Treasury) seizure of KindHearts assets without notice or means of appeal is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. 

Al Haramain v. Treasury: Successful Constitutional Challenge to Unlimited Treasury Power to Shut Down Charities

in
Date: 
November 16, 2009

On Nov. 7, 2008 Judge Garr King of the United States District Court in Oregon ruled that the Department of Treasury's action in shutting down the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. (AHIF-Oregon) in 2004 violated the organization's Fifth Amendment rights and potentially their Fourth Amendment rights as well. Judge King also ruled that the term "material support" of terrorism in Bush's Executive Order 13,224 (EO 13224), which grants the Secretary of Treasury power to designate Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), is unconstitutionally vague.

Summary of KindHearts Ruling Requiring Due Process and Probable Cause to Shut Down Charities

in
Date: 
September 16, 2009

The Aug. 18, 2009 federal court ruling in KindHearts v. Treasury is a positive step forward in the ongoing efforts of U.S. charities to make national security laws fair and ensure they protect vulnerable people that depend on charities for vital aid. The 100 page order found that the Department of Treasury's (Treasury) seizure of KindHearts assets without notice or means of appeal is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. This summary reviews the court order and notes issues to be addressed in developing better procedures. 

Exhibits and Transcripts from the Second HLF Trial

in
Date: 
April 9, 2009

The attorneys for the Holy Land Foundation have released several exhibits and portions of transcripts from the recent trial. The documents, listed below, contain evidence supporting the defendants' argument that USAID continued to support the same groups, hospitals and programs targeted by the government.

To view the exhibits or transcripts, please click on the links: 

Court: Definitions of Supporting Terrorism Too Vague

in
Date: 
January 15, 2009

In January 2009 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a government petition for rehearing of a ruling declaring the statute making it a crime to provide "material support or resources" to any group designated a "foreign terrorist organization" unconstitutional as applied to the terms "training", "expert advice or assistance" from "specialized knowledge" and "service." The decision reaffirmed that Congress' 2004 amendments failed to cure the vagueness problem with these terms. The rulings do not affect the rest of the material support statute, which only exempts medicine and religious materials.