Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 23, 2010 Decided June 21, 2010
Full case name	Holder et al. v. Humanitarian Law Project et al.
Docket nos.	08-1498
Citations	561 U.S. 1 (more) 130 S.Ct. 2705
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), 130 S.Ct. 2705, was a case decided in June 2010 by the United States Supreme Court regarding the USA PATRIOT Act's prohibition on providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). The case, petitioned by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, represents the only time in U.S. First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has passed the Brandenburg v. Ohio test.

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 peacefully resolve conflicts. It concluded that Congress had intended to prevent aid to such groups, even if for the purpose of facilitating peace negotiations or United Nations processes, because that assistance did 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.

The court noted that the proposed fractions of the Humanitarian Law Project were general and "entirely hypothetical", implying that a post-enforcement challenge to the application of the "material support" provisions is not foreclosed.