Litigation

Supreme Court Tackles Anti-Terror Law Challenge

By Peter Hardin

The Supreme Court is wrestling with arguments raised in its first review of a part of the USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In oral arguments, the Obama administration defended a law making it illegal to give support to a foreign terrorist group, while a retired judge and University of Southern California professor challenging the law contended his free-speech rights were threatened.

“What Congress decided is that when you help Hezbollah build homes, you’re helping Hezbollah build bombs,” Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the court, according to a Los Angeles Times article.

David Cole, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said he represents activists who want to persuade foreign groups to avoid violence and seek dispute resolution at the United Nations. “They seek to advise them on peaceful conflict resolution. They seek to support only lawful activities,” said Cole, who represents the Humanitarian Law Project and its president, Ralph Fertig.

A line between First Amendment-protected speech  and aid to terrorists “appeared elusive,” according to the New York Times.

According to the National Law Journal, justices appeared trouble by the law’s broad sweep, and especially Kagan’s assertion it would prohibit an attorney from writing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a designated terrorist group in U.S. courts.

You can learn more about the Patriot Act by visiting Justice at Stake?s page on National Security and  Civil Liberties.  A  2006 JAS publication entitled ?Courting Danger,? analyzed how the law ?dramatically weakened the historic power of the courts to protect our rights and check government abuses.?

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 24, 2010 (boomark / email).