Jump to content

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

From Deep Politics Wiki


Full article adapted from Wikipedia revision 1378435732 by Wikipedia contributors. Text is available under CC BY-SA 4.0. Formatting has been adapted; article text and references are retained. Snapshot imported 2026-10-09.
‹ The template below (Cite check) is being considered for merging with Verify sources. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

2010 United States Supreme Court case
<tbody> </tbody>
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 23, 2010
Decided June 21, 2010
Full case nameHolder et al. v. Humanitarian Law Project et al.
Docket no.08-1498
Citations561 U.S. 1 (more)
130 S. Ct. 2705; 177 L. Ed. 2d 355
Case history
PriorHumanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2009)
Holding
The federal government may prohibit providing non-violent material support for terrorist organizations, including legal services and advice, without violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
DissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; 18 U.S.C. § 2339B

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), was a case decided in June 2010 by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Patriot Act's prohibition on providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). The case, petitioned by United States Attorney General Eric Holder,[1] represents one of only two times in First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has overcome strict scrutiny.[2] The other is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled against the Humanitarian Law Project, which sought to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey and Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam learn how to resolve conflicts peacefully.[3] It concluded that the US Congress had intended to prevent aid to such groups, even for the purpose of facilitating peace negotiations or United Nations processes because that assistance fit the law's definition of material aid as "training", "expert advice or assistance", "service", and "personnel". The finding was based on the principle that any assistance could help to "legitimate" the terrorist organization and free up its resources for terrorist activities.[4]

The court noted that the proposed actions of the Humanitarian Law Project were general and "entirely hypothetical" and implied that a post-enforcement challenge to the application of the "material support" provisions was not prevented.

Background

Providing material support for terrorism

See also: Patriot Act and Providing material support for terrorism

Providing material support is a crime prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B a section created after the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton. Following the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, the Patriot Act was signed into law in order to counteract terrorism in the United States. The Patriot Act expanded material support to include "monetary instruments and expert advice and assistance."[5]

"Material support" is defined broadly as including: financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, false documentation, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, personnel, transportation.[6][7][8][9]

Beginnings of the Case

This case started as a preventative suit, brought forth by plaintiffs, specifically, "the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) (a human rights organization with consultative status to the United Nations); Ralph Fertig (the HLP’s president, and a retired administrative law judge); Nagalingam Jeyalingam (a Tamil physician, born in Sri Lanka and a naturalized U. S. citizen); and five nonprofit groups dedicated to the interests of persons of Tamil descent."[2]

Supreme Court

Argument

The plaintiffs brought the material-support statute up as unconstitutional according to the first amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that violated their protections of free speech.[10]

Opinion of the Court

All nine justices agreed that the material support as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2339B was not unconstitutionally vague.[11] This decision did not overturn any precedents, and there was a general sentiment that this decision did not apply in all cases where the statute could've been applied.[11]

Dissenting opinions

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.[10][11] The basis for their dissent was not the unconstitutional vagueness of "material support," but rather that there was not enough evidence to prove that the activist speech which the plaintiff brought forth posed a direct compelling threat of terrorism.[11][12]

Subsequent Developments

Overall, this case has been interpreted by various scholars as an emphasis on how the emphasis on preventing terrorism can prove to be greater than protecting free speech.[13][14] Many critics point to how this decision criminalizes acts of peaceful support to oversees organizations.[13] It's a decision that continues to shape discussions on the first amendment.

Reception

Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the decision and argued:

The "material support law" – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens The Carter Center's work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom.[15]

Élisabeth Decrey Warner, the president of the Swiss NGO Geneva Call, also expressed her disapproval by stating, "Civilians caught in the middle of conflicts and hoping for peace will suffer from this decision. How can you start peace talks or negotiations if you don't have the right to speak to both parties?"[16]

In January 2011, David D. Cole, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, who argued the case for the Humanitarian Law Project, commented on developments since the decision. He noted that several prominent former officeholders, including Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Ridge, had spoken in support of the People's Mujahedin of Iran, an Iranian opposition group calling for democracy in Iran[17] that was previously placed in the United States FTO list as a "goodwill gesture" to the Iranian government.[18][19][20] He stated that he supported their right to speak but that even nonviolent advocacy, such as urging a designation as "terrorist" to be revoked, was illegal under the Supreme Court decision. He also pointed to exemptions granted under the rubric of "humanitarian aid" that turned out to include products like cigarettes and chewing gum.[20] He stated, "Under current law, it seems, the right to make profits is more sacrosanct than the right to petition for peace, and the need to placate American businesses more compelling than the need to provide food and shelter to earthquake victims and war refugees."[20]

The linguist Noam Chomsky criticized[21] the decision as an issue of freedom of speech and stated that it was "the first major attack on freedom of speech in the United States since the notorious Smith Act back around 1940."[22] He also stated that it had troubling legal implications since Humanitarian Law Project gave out advice to PKK to urge the group to pursue nonviolence.[23]

The magazine Mother Jones stated that "the Supreme Court ruled that even protected speech can be a criminal act if it occurs at the direction of a terrorist organization." It went on to say that people "could be convicted of materially supporting terrorism merely for translating a document or putting an extremist video online, depending on [their] intentions."[24]

Representatives of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement stated that the ruling would probably not affect its operations or its relationship with the US government.[16]

Implementation

In September 2010, the FBI raided activists in Minneapolis and Chicago; seized computers, cellphones and files; and issued subpoenas to some targeted individuals to appear before a federal grand jury. The FBI agents were seeking evidence of ties to groups deemed by the US government to be foreign terrorist organizations, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.[25][26] Attorneys linked the raids to the Holder decision.[27][28]

See also

References

  1. ^ Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The Oyez Project. August 4, 2012. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved August 7, 2012.
  2. ^ a b "Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)". Justia. [T]he Court found that a restriction on political speech was valid under strict scrutiny for the first time in its history.
  3. ^ Adam Liptak (June 21, 2010). "Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror". The New York Times.
  4. ^ Liptak, Adam (February 23, 2010). "Before the Supreme Court, First Amendment and Aid to Terrorists". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 4, 2019.
  5. ^ Christopher Reinhart, Associate Attorney. "Summary of federal "USA PATRIOT Act"". www.cga.ct.gov. Archived from the original on October 11, 2024. Retrieved April 30, 2026.
  6. ^ Bricker, Benjamin (2017). "Material Support for Terror and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: An Empirical Examination" (PDF). Southern Illinois University Law Journal. 42 (1): 1–30.
  7. ^ "18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 16, 2026.
  8. ^ "Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and § 2339B". www.congress.gov. Retrieved April 18, 2026.
  9. ^ "18 USC 2339B: Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved April 18, 2026.
  10. ^ a b "Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)". Justia Law. Retrieved April 20, 2026.
  11. ^ a b c d "Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project". Oyez. Retrieved April 18, 2026.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ Cole, David. "The First Amendment's Borders: The Place of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in First Amendment Doctrine". Georgetown Law. Retrieved April 20, 2026.
  13. ^ a b Cole, David. "The First Amendment's Borders: The Place of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in First Amendment Doctrine". Georgetown Law. Retrieved April 20, 2026.
  14. ^ Hansman, Raleigh E. (2012). "Doctrinal Development or Devolution: An Examination of the Incidental Regulation Test From Texas v. Johnson Through Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project". red.library.usd.edu. Retrieved April 26, 2026.
  15. ^ American Civil Liberties Union (June 21, 2010). "Supreme Court Rules 'Material Support' Law Can Stand". Retrieved September 26, 2010.
  16. ^ a b Berry, Marcus (July 14, 2010). "Supreme Court ruling threatens Swiss NGO efforts". Archived from the original on July 16, 2010. Retrieved September 26, 2010..
  17. ^ Rafizadeh, Majid (July 16, 2020). "Calls for democracy in Iran continue to grow louder". Arab News.
  18. ^ Kelemen, Michele (August 25, 2011). "Iranian Exile Group Lobbies To Get Off Terrorist List". All Things Considered – via NPR.
  19. ^ Shane, Scott (September 21, 2012). "Iranian Group M.E.K. Wins Removal From U.S. Terrorist List". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 1, 2021. Retrieved March 25, 2025.
  20. ^ a b c Cole, David (2011). "Chewing Gum for Terrorists". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Wikidata Q130817298.
  21. ^ Noam Chomsky Videos (April 20, 2014), Noam Chomsky on "Freedom of Speech and Anti Fascism", retrieved May 16, 2017
  22. ^ Chomsky, Noam (January 16, 2011). Chomsky on Obama vs. Free Speech. YouTube. Archived from the original on December 15, 2021.
  23. ^ Chomsky, Noam (February 17, 2011). "'Democracy Uprising' in the U.S.A.?: Noam Chomsky on Wisconsin's Resistance to Assault on Public Sector, the Obama-Sanctioned Crackdown on Activists, and the Distorted Legacy of Ronald Reagan". Democracy Now! (Interview). Interviewed by Goodman, Amy.
  24. ^ Serwer, Adam (December 16, 2011). "Does Posting Jihadist Material Make Tarek Mehanna a Terrorist?". Mother Jones.
  25. ^ Colin Moynihan, F.B.I. Searches Antiwar Activists’ Homes, New York Times, September 24, 2010
  26. ^ Search warrant Archived 2010-10-08 at the Wayback Machine and subpoena Archived 2010-10-08 at the Wayback Machine (Indymedia)
  27. ^ Sheila Regan, FBI raids activist homes in Minneapolis, Chicago, Twin Cities Daily Planet, September 24, 2010.
  28. ^ Activists to Protest Recent FBI Raids on Anti-War Members, Associated Press, September 24, 2010.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://deeppolitics.org/index.php?title=Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project&oldid=98355"