Constitutional Law, Courts, International, Lawyering, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Expansive Reading of Material Support Law

The Supreme Court rejected first amendment claims and upheld a federal law on providing “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The material support law (found in the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)) is the darling of prosecutors and widely ridiculed by civil libertarians for allowing virtually any act to be classified as material support. The ruling is a victory for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and a loss for civil liberties. Notably, however, even the conservatives on the Court found the interpretation of the Obama Administration to be too extreme.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion and agreed that material support includes giving intangible assistance to groups labeled by the State Department as terrorist organizations. Roberts noted “[s]uch support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends . . . It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups; legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members and to raise funds; all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.” Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority decision.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer rejected such claims, noting that there is a clear difference between giving money to such an organization and teaching human rights law. Various groups argued that they were trying to steer such organizations away from terrorism by teaching them how to work within international law principles and procedures. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. It is a reassuring vote by Sotomayor who was viewed as being both pro-law enforcement and weak on free speech while on the Second Circuit.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the case herself, but took such an extremist position that even Roberts balked: “The government is wrong that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct” and not speech. As a limit on potential abuse, the Court insisted that only conduct directed by such groups would be covered and not “independent advocacy.” That line of distinction, however, was left maddeningly vague and will likely cause considerable uncertainty in the lower courts.

Among the challengers was Ralph D. Fertig, a civil rights activist who wanted to help the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey find peaceful ways to achieve its goals.

Here is the opinion: 08-1498

For the full story, click here.

29 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Expansive Reading of Material Support Law”

  1. Obama is center right on many things. I agree. The problem is many in the US consider him to be a socialist so there you go.

  2. Obama is right wing. The reason this isn’t easily understood is because of govt. propaganda. Look at just three of his actions; bombing civilians, imprisoning the innocent, killing people on his say so. These are not liberal, democratic values. These aren’t conservative values. These are the actions of a man who said he would bring the kingdom of god of earth, (just like the other right wing religious zealots people believe are a threat to our nation). These are the actions of a man who has declared himself a dictator. These would normally be called the actions of a fascist. These actions should not be acceptable to anyone, left or right. Right wing zealots of all stripes, even when called Democrats, need to be opposed. Actions which destroy the rule of law and our Constitution should be opposed no matter who is doing them. If a right wing Republican is doing them, oppose them. If a right wing Democrat is doing them, oppose them.

  3. Buddha/AY:

    can you guys help me understand this?

    If I am understanding this correctly if I tell someone I think that Al Qaeda is an organization full of great guys I can be arrested?

    Isn’t that a tad bit overbearing? If that is the correct interpretation then 6 who voted for it are playing fast and loose. Who gets to decide what is appropriate and what isn’t?

    Is there someone out there that can give the reasons why this would be a good thing?

  4. Obama is right. Bachmann Palin Angle, Brewer, Norton, etc. are the bogeymen or women. They seem to be recruiting women that are to the right of Phyllis Schafly this year.

  6. Here is how the Obama propaganda works: Obama holds out the right as a bogeyman. If you don’t vote for me, you’ll get someone who…dismantles the rule of law? bombs civilians? imprisons the innocent? rewards financial criminals? cuts the benefits of the most vulnerable? escalates the number of wars? won’t take action to immediately ameliorate climate change? drills for more oil instead of investing in green technology?

    You mean that’s who you’ll get if you don’t vote for Obama? Of course, that’s who you’re getting if you do vote for Obama, but that dread of some (other) right winger doing the same thing seems to keep people in line.

    It is not possible to sink lower than the imprisonment of the innocent, be you R, D. or I.

  9. The DC attorney is facing problems because she advised them on something totally unrelated to war efforts. That is bull shit.

  10. Here’s an example of material support (and not for peaceful measures):
    “U.S. indirectly paying Afghan warlords as part of security contract.

    By Karen DeYoung
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, June 22, 2010

    The U.S. military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country, according to congressional investigators.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062104628.html?hpid=topnews

    If we the people allow this because it is “good Congressional Democrats and a “wonderful Democratic President” we will end up a completely lawless empire. A moral conscience is more necessary than every before– one that looks only at actions, not party, to oppose that which is wrong.

  11. The operative word seems to be “knowingly” contributes to a terrorist organization.

    Who decides what is a terrorist organization? Does this mean a terrorist organization as defined by another country or only ours?

    Does this mean that anyone that contributed to Republicans and Democrats, who voted for the Iraq war, from 2004 on?
    That contributes to Israel’s government?
    To the IRA?

    What are the limits, if any, of this decision?

  13. The three votes against this decision were all democratic appointments. Kagan was doing her job as Solicitor General. Do people actually think she is to the right of the Bush appointees? I suggest you read her views. It was said on this board that Sotomayor would be really bad. That has certainly not been proven to be true.

  15. I see this as the ongoing project of 1. making the terrorists love us by removing every freedom we had and 2. making the illegal, “legal”. You may have noticed that everything Bush and Cheney did or dreamed of doing is now being codified into “law” by Obama, Congress and a corrupt Supreme Court. These actions are abetted by a quiescent populace who wants to believe Obama is a great guy who would never, ever do anything wrong. The only group that has a chance of changing here is the quiescent populace whom I suggest needs to pull their head out of the ass and oppose things that are illegal, immoral and completely destructive of the rule of law. That means opposing Obama, Congressional Republicans and Democrats and that also means opposing their lackey, Kagan, for the Supreme Court. It also means massive peaceful protest.

    Like Mespo, I don’t see why this law would not apply to our govt who supports all kinds of terrorist organizations when it suits them. But that would mean we were a nation of laws, where rulings applied to everyone, not just whomever the govt. would like to go after today.

  16. mespo,

    You are gonna get audited for that statement. Just because you put dress it up, put lipstick on it, its still a pig…..

  17. I am confused by the indirect benefit logic. Does that mean if the US government provides subsidies and non-cash benefits to the Saudi’s, whose royal family, in turn, supports radical Islamic factions, the US Government is guilty under the law since that resources it provides could allow the princes of Arabia more money to give to their radical Arab brothers?

  18. Its only criminal if you are Prosecuted Buddha. Ask Ken Lay, oh you can’t he’d dead. Died in his sleep. Hummmm. Record cleared as he was never sentenced. It is like the case never happened.

    Then you have the Attorney in DC who is facing losing her license because she is charged under the Aiding the Enemy Act.

  19. It’s criminal what all these cowards do to the Constitution out of pure and naked fear.

  20. Ok.

    So when will Bush and, more importantly, Cheney be doing their perp walk for aiding and abetting the terrorist attacks of 9/11 made by their friends, the Saudis?

    Equal Protection and all that.

Comments are closed.