Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

As I was listening to my Glee Christmas Album (yes I listen to them; don't judge me), I reread an email by my sister that said "be careful what you say and do.. the recent supreme court ruling means even peace activists are now a target.." I read the article attached  that clearly argued against the findings of the Court, so I decided to look into it. I read the Court's opinion, 5 Amicus Briefs (arguments sent by "friends of the court" voicing their opinions), all the Merit Briefs and two analysis. It was painstaking, but that's what a future lawyer has to do.  So let me summarize without all the legal jargon and irrelevant court procedures.

The importance of such a case? It is the biggest test of the First Amendment that the Court has decided since it's controversial decision Citizens United v. FEC (this case decided that corporations could donate as much money as they want for political parties; any limit restricts their freedom of speech). There are also some major cases such as Snyder v. Phelps (a personal favorite) and Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association which all bring into question freedom of speech and its limits (these cases haven't been decided yet). But to the point of this case, it is also significant because it is the first and only case that directly challenges the USA Patriot Act, a law passed 6 weeks after Sept 11, that has reached the highest court in the land.

 Background of the Case: 

The original case was filed 12 years ago and has finally made its way to the top.  The case is a consolidation of two different cases into one for the Justices. One one side is a plethora of Pro-Tamil organizations like the Tamils of Northern California and Tamil Welfare and Human Rights Committee to name a few. For those that don't know, the Tamil people are native to India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. The Tamil Tigers (active in Sri Lanka) are labeled as a terrorist organization by the U.S. as are the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who fight for an independent Kurdistan from Turkey and Iraq. The suit was filed to gain the right to continue their efforts to "speak to, for, and in coordination with" these terrorist labeled organizations.

The Tamils (just to give them a name, although they are not officially the organization from Sri Lanka) believe that amendments to the Patriot Act that allow the State Department to stop "material support" for organizations it labels as terrorists. That phrase "material support" has been greatly expanded by later laws of Congress to include criminalizing “material support” in the form of “service,”  ”training,” or “expert advice or assistance, support in the form of  “personnel” or “expert advice or assistance” if it was “derived from scientific or technical knowledge.” Lower courts decided that the first three were unconstitutional because they were too "vague" while the last two were upheld as constitutional.

The Tamils argue that with such vague sections of the law, the federal government can overstep its bounds and as a result, restrict free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as the 14th Amendment which guarantees "Equal Protection of the Law." More specifically, the group vigorously attacked the law's ban on support in the form of training or advice based on scientific or technical knowledge. They oppose it because it can be used to support criminal prosecution on many free speech activities like publishing statement by a leader of a blacklisted organization or giving legal advice if the group filed a human rights complaint with the UN.

The federal government argues that it isn't targeting speech just "conduct" (?) that helps terrorists organizations. The Patriot Act has been the strongest arm of the government at combating terrorism, and the Justice Department (as argued by Elena Kagan, still Solicitor General) believes it is essential to any fight to protect the country.

Court's Decision:

 6-3 in favor of the federal government. Justice Breyer wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Personal Opinion:
Of course, I don't believe that the federal government aims to restrict freedom of speech, however, I believe that the effects of the law are overreaching to some extent. The definition of "conduct" that can help aid a terrorist organization is far too broad and needs to be better defined to guarantee no abuse of power. On the face of it, I wouldn't agree with the decision, but delving deeper into the Court's long opinion, I realized that it wasn't a complete victory for the federal government. The Supreme Court basically decided that, the government wasn't overstepping it's bounds, and could restrict those actions ONLY if the actions were controlled by the overseas terrorist organization. The decision makes sense, because it would work to reduce the influence of those organizations in the U.S. however, the Court didn't given any advice to the lower courts on how to pursue such issues which means it could get ugly (and abusive). An important part of the decision was that the Court agreed that even humanitarian efforts to help deal with abuses by governments like those of Turkey, Sri Lanka, Israel, etc could be prosecuted by the federal government. So, although you won't go to jail anytime soon for arguing for the Tamil Tigers, if it is with conjunction with the actual organization, expect the government to come knocking.

It is important to note that "independent advocacy" hasn't been defined, which again leaves room for government abuse. Although I don't completely disagree with the ruling, my sister's article did make an important point: Just a few years ago Nelson Mandela was removed off of the U.S. Terror List, and if the Patriot Act, as it is now, was in effect during the Apartheid years in South Africa, President Barack Obama (who was part of protests and pro Mendela) could potentially be prosecuted for his "conduct."  In a play of the famous statement "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" I would say today's terrorist can be tomorrow's freedom fighter (as was the case with Mandela). I'm not saying Osama Bin Laden will be a hero in the future, however,  it is better to create limits through definitions than be too broad in definition and interpretation I say.  Government always takes advantage of powers given to it by Congress or the Courts, let's not make that undue power.

If you are into all this legal jargon and you are sick and having nothing else to do because you are stuck at home lest you infect everyone around you or get even more sick (like myself) here are the documents: For the Merit Briefs I read: click here, here, here, and here. For the Court's Opinion. For the 5 Amicus Briefs I read: Click here, here, here, here, and here.