ÃÛÖ­ÏãÌÒ

Legal Principle at Issue

Can the federal government prohibit non-violent material support for terrorist organizations, including legal services and advice, without violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Action

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the rulings by the district and appeals courts, upholding the constitutionality of the "material support" statute in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. In a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held the statute was constitutional, even when applied to speech and activities that were nonviolent. The Court found that the statute did not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of individuals or organizations that wish to engage in peaceful advocacy or nonviolent support to foreign terrorist organizations.

Facts/Syllabus

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 makes it illegal for any person or organization in the U.S. to provide "material support" or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, with certain exceptions.

In this case, the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), a nonprofit organization, wanted to provide legal and peace-building training to the Kurdish separatist group, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka (LTTE, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). HLP argued that the assistance would be nonviolent and focused on promoting peace, yet it still faced criminal charges under the "material support" statute because the PKK and LTTE were listed as foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. government.

HLP filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2007, challenging the constitutionality of the "material support" statute in AEDPA. The district court ruled in favor of HLP and declared the "material support" statute unconstitutional, holding the statute's ban on providing nonviolent support, like expert advice and training, violated the First Amendment because it chilled the exercise of free speech and association rights by individuals and organizations seeking to engage in peaceful activities. The government appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court and after a convoluted legal process ultimately upheld most of the lower court's ruling that the "material support" statute was unconstitutionally vague.

Importance of Case

The Court's decision effectively affirmed the government's position that it could restrict not only direct violent support to terrorist groups but also indirect nonviolent support if it could contribute to the group's ability to carry out illegal activities.