Litigation

Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Terrorism Law

By Peter Hardin

A federal law that bans “material support” for foreign terrorist groups is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, handing a victory to the Obama administration.

With its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected a First Amendment challenge and upheld the ban on aid to designated groups even when it was intended to give them tools for avoiding violence.

?At bottom, plaintiffs simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization ? even seemingly benign support ? bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization,? Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, according to a New York Times article.

?Given the sensitive interests in national security and foreign affairs at stake,? he continued, ?the political branches have adequately substantiated their determination that, to serve the government?s interest in preventing terrorism, it was necessary to prohibit providing material support in the form of training, expert advice, personnel, and services to foreign terrorist groups, even if the supporters meant to promote only the groups? nonviolent ends.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, who read aloud from his dissent, stated, “Not even the ‘serious and deadly problem’ of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,” the Washington Post reported.

David Cole, a Georgetown University Law Center professor who represented activists in the case, was disappointed by the ruling. The court basically ruled, Cole said, that  “the First Amendment permits the government to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime.”

?What Congress decided is that when you help Hezbollah build homes, you?re helping Hezbollah build bombs,? Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the court at oral argument (see Gavel Grab). She now is approaching confirmation hearings on her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

It was the first time since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that the high court decided a case involving citizens’ free speech rights pitted against the government’s anti-terrorism efforts, according to Reuters. The law at issue initially was adopted in 1996. It was bolstered by the USA Patriot Act, passed after the September 11 attacks, and was revised again in 2004.

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 June 21, 2010 (boomark / email).