Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Does the necessity of combating terrorism make permissible certain curtailments of freedom of speech?
That is the question at the heart of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which was argued in front of the U.S Supreme Court this 23rd of February. The case was brought on behalf of US individuals and non-profit organizations working to promote peaceful means to the resolution of conflicts globally. The lead plaintiff, Humanitarian Law Project, had worked to support the legal nonviolent activities of the Kurdish Worker’s Party (an organization labelled as a terrorist by the US State Department), before stopping in the face of new US legislation.
Initially filed in 1998, the case challenges those provisions of the US Patriot Act that ban the provision of “material support” to groups designed as terrorists by the US State Department. This provision bans even advice that consists of how to resolve disputes peaceably or “training on how to make human rights claims before the United Nations.” The key question argued in front of the court was whether the ban on “material support” was in the government’s definition, so vague as to be constitutionally impermissible. The plaintiffs’ lawyer in the case, David Cole, argues that, “The interest in stopping even pure speech, furthering no illegal ends, simply because you don't like an organization because you decided to make an organization 'radioactive,' is impermissible under our First Amendment."
The Carter Centre, the Peace Appeal Foundation, and many other humanitarian organisations filed amicus briefs on behalf of Humanitarian Law Project. Speaking on behalf of the Carter Center, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter stated, “Our work to end violence sometimes requires interacting directly with groups that have engaged in it.”
The freedom of speech is a much revered and tightly held constitutional right for the average U.S. citizen, and lower courts in the US have agreed that even a partial criminalization of it has raised troublesome questions about the constitutionality of US anti-terrorism laws. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have far-reaching ramifications for peace and human rights organisations.
Following the Supreme Court argument on February 23rd, a panel of attorneys, including Mr. Cole, convened at the Georgetown School of Law to discuss the arguments relating to the case. Jeff Seul, Partner at Holland and Knight LLP, and Chairman of the Peace Appeal Foundation, spoke from the peacebuilding professionals perspective, noting how current US law has already constrained the peacebuilding efforts of US based institutions working around the globe.
For further information, please see the following online resources:
Resources:
A recap of Prof. David Cole’s argument as he recalled it during the Georgetown panel can be accessed via webcast: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/webcast/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=1032
Center for Constitutional Rights
http://ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project
Washington Legal Foundation
http://www.wlf.org/litigating/case_detail.asp?id=425
Dockets
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1498.htm
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-89.htm
ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project-amicus-brief-carter-center-et-al
Articles:
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24scotus.html?hpw
NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123993822
