 |
| Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 23, 2010 Decided June 21, 2010 | |
| Full case name | Holder et al. v. Humanitarian Law Project et al. |
| Docket no. | 08-1498 |
| Citations | 561 U.S. 1 (more) 130 S. Ct. 2705; 177 L. Ed. 2d 355 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Humanitarian 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. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Dissent | Breyer, 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.
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.
- ^ Unknown author, (Aug 4, 2012) Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, retrieved August 7, 2012
- ^ "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.
- ^ Adam Liptak, Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror, The New York Times, June 21, 2010.
- ^ 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.