The US upreme Court ruled Monday that the Government can bar aid to terrorist groups even when the support is aimed at legal purposes. The Humanitarian Law Project and other organizations had challenged the anti-terrorism law, arguing that they should be allowed to provide training in international law to groups such as the LTTE.

 

 

 

In the 6 to 3 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that a law banning “material support” to agencies designated as terrorist organizations is constitutional.

 

 

 

The Humanitarian Law Project and other organizations had challenged the anti-terrorism law, claiming that it was too restrictive of their freedoms of speech and association and arguing that they should be allowed to provide training in international law to groups such as the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, or the PKK, in Turkeyand the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

 

 

 

The groups had sought legal rulings that would allow them to provide aid in funds, legal training and political advocacy for the PKK and the Tamil Tigers, which is barred under federal anti-terror funding statutes.

 

 

 

Roberts’ opinion rejected those claims, however, calling them “untenable” while also discarding their arguments that the language of the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

 

 

 

“As a general matter, the statutory terms at issue here are quite different from the sorts of terms that we have previously declared to be vague,” Roberts wrote. “We have in the past ‘struck down statutes that tied criminal culpability to whether the defendant’s conduct was ‘annoying’ or ‘indecent’—wholly subjective judgments without statutory definitions, narrowing context, or settled legal meanings.’“

 

 

 

He added, “Even assuming that a heightened standard applies because the material support statute potentially implicates speech, the statutory terms are not vague as applied to plaintiffs.”

 

 

 

Roberts said that the advice the organizations sought to provide to the terrorist groups would readily be identified as training or offering expert advice and assistance, two actions specifically barred by the statute.

 

 

 

At the same time, the court also ruled that “independent” advocacy for the groups would not constitute support for the terrorist groups.

 

 

 

“Under the material-support statute, plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any topic,” Roberts wrote. “They may speak and write freely about the PKK and LTTE, the governments of Turkeyand Sri Lanka, human rights, and international law. They may advocate before the United Nations.”

 

 

 

He added, “Congress has not, therefore, sought to suppress ideas or opinions in the form of ‘pure political speech.’ Rather, Congress has prohibited ‘material support,’ which most often does not take the form of speech at all. And when it does, the statute is carefully drawn to cover only a narrow category of speech to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations.”

 

 

Roberts also rejected the contention that the advocacy groups could provide aide to the legitimate activities of terrorist groups, noting that Congress had specifically found that any support to such organizations could facilitate their terrorist activities.

 

 

 

“Material support meant to ‘promot[e] peaceable, lawful conduct,’ …can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways,” he said. “‘Material support’ is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends.”

 

 

 

He added, “It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups—legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds—all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.”

 

 

 

Roberts also noted that terrorist organizations frequently seek to shield their illicit activities with charitable and other legitimate actions.

 

 

“Money is fungible, and ‘[w]hen foreign terrorist organizations that have a dual structure raise funds, they highlight the civilian and humanitarian ends to which such moneys could be put,’“ Roberts said. “But ‘there is reason to believe that foreign terrorist organizations do not maintain legitimate financial firewalls between those funds raised for civil, nonviolent activities, and those ultimately used to support violent, terrorist operations.’“

 

 

 

He added, “Providing foreign terrorist groups with material support in any form also furthers terrorism by straining the United States’ relationships with its allies and undermining cooperative efforts between nations to prevent terrorist attacks.”

 

 

Meanwhile, Justice Stephen Breyer, who took the relatively unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, said, “In my view, the Government has not met its burden of showing that an interpretation of the statute that would prohibit this speech- and association-related activity serves the Government’s compelling interest in combating terrorism.”

 

 

 

Breyer was joined in the dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

^{US Agencies}