Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Holding onto Hope: Gina Rinehart's Bleak House ... Seeking chunks of the huge iron ore pit, Hope Downs ... Tracing the tangled Wright, Hancock, Rinehart litigation ... Allegations of fraud against the family trust ... Manouvering ... Tax "advice" ... Shifting vesting date ... Money, the root of unhappiness ... Anthony-James Kanaan reports ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Pastoral care ... Election free content … Cardinal sins … The Pope leaves behind the wreckage of his predatory priests … The law keeps victims in check … Litigation loopholes … Latest cases … Catholic Church’s battle to keep the money ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

"Invasion" of the United States ...Trump deportations ... Detention in gulags ... How much of an enemy does an alien have to be? ... Trump judge turns the tables ... Bush's war on terror shows the way ... Forum shopping for habeas cases ... Roger Fitch files from Washington ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Justinian is taking a break during May ... Normal operations will recommence in June ... 

Justinian's Bloggers

Conclave Part 2: Return of the Prodigal ... Vatican fraudster returns ... And departs ... Another struck-off Cardinal re-emerges ... Blowflies in the Conclave ointment ... What can go wrong? ... Silvana Olivetti reports from Rome ... Read more >> 

"We're in unchartered territory here. A Pope hasn't died before during an Australian election campaign."  

Jane Norman, National Affairs Correspondent, ABC News ... April 21, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Letter from London ... Voting at Australia House ... Polling at the Vatican ... Holding down three public service jobs at once ... LibDems want to tone down the noise ... How to foul-up a cover-up ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt on the case in Blighty ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Judgment of the week ... Justice Ian Harrison in the NSW Supremes dismisses apprehended bias application ... Facebook posts by judge's tipstaff ... Claim made by family values applicant that HH's associate supports gay rights ... Battle with a noted sexual equality campaigner ... Purple pride ... Jurisdictional issue ... Finding that cases are decided by judges, not their staff ... From Justinian's Archive, May 10, 2019 ...  Read more >> 


 

 

« The beak as perverter | Main | Up the workers »
Tuesday
Jun222010

Material support

The US Supreme Court criminalises the advocacy of non-violent activity … First Amendment backflip … National security trumps free speech … Roger Fitch reports from Washington

The opinion in one of the Supreme Court’s most important cases was handed down in the last full week of the court’s term.

Holder v Humanitarian Law Project (see website) involved a pre-emptive attack by the HLP on 18 USC 2339(B)(a)(1), which makes it a federal crime to “knowingly provid[e] material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization”.

HLP is a non-profit organization founded in 1985, “dedicated to protecting human rights and promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict by using established international human rights laws and humanitarian law”.

It has helped the Kurdish minority in Turkey present their human rights grievances to the UN.

Some Kurds, however, are members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which the State Department has designated as a terrorist group.

Afraid it could be prosecuted under “material support” amendments to the PATRIOT Act, HLP suspended its support for the Kurds and challenged the material support legislation, as it applied to advocacy of lawful activities of organisations designated “terrorist” by the government, such as presentations at the UN.

HLP prevailed in the district court and 9th Circuit, and the government appealed.

At oral argument in February, HLP learned it would have a difficult time.

On Monday (June 21), the case was decided in the government’s favour by a majority of 6-3, including outgoing Justice John Paul Stevens.

The case involved the First Amendment and free speech, just as in the court’s recent Citizens United case, where a previously unknown right of (financially-unlimited) free speech was found to be a birthright of corporations.

This time, the result was an evisceration, rather than endorsement, of free speech.

The New York Times and Scotusblog have more.

The far right Heritage Society loved it, but most lawyers won’t.

At oral argument, the solicitor general suggested that legal representation could be material support, too

Not even ex-presidents are safe.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, whose lawyers represented HLP, has pointed out that under the logic of the decision, Jimmy Carter could be prosecuted for monitoring elections in Lebanon and Palestine, where the former president met with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to encourage fair elections.

Carter (pic) submitted an amicus brief in support of Humanitarian Law Project, but in a rare departure for a civil liberties case, there were more briefs for the government than HLP.

They came from organisations such as the Anti-Defamation League, and, just as in the Bush days, the rightwing Washington Legal Foundation.

According to CCR, it was the first time the Supreme Court “has permitted the government to make it a crime to advocate lawful, nonviolent activity”.

CCR’s lawyer, Georgetown law prof David Cole, believed the ruling was also a major departure from Supreme Court First Amendment doctrine, marking the first time that the court had found a statute restricting speech satisfied the “strict scrutiny” standard.

The Christian Science Monitor, along with The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic have more.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.