SCOTUS to Hear Oral Arguments on Challenge to Anti-Terror Law
The government regards the legislation as a significant tool in counterterrorism and has a reported 70 percent success rate in prosecutions brought under this legislation. It argues that the restrictions are clear and necessary and that aid to any portion of such organizations is fungible, meaning that providing money to the charitable wing of a terrorist group frees up resources for it to use for terrorist activities.
Many groups have filed amici (friends of the court) briefs on one or the other side of the issue:
A number of groups have submitted briefs supporting the arguments of the Humanitarian Law Project:
Advertisement· Constitution Project and the Rutherford Institute
· Academic Researchers and the Citizen Media Law Project
(snip)
A number of groups have submitted briefs supporting the arguments of the government:
· Scholars, Attorneys, and Former Public Officials with Experience in Terrorism-Related Issues
· Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and Center for Law and Counterterrorism
The briefs of the main parties are available online. Here is the opening brief for the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP).
Here is the government’s responsive brief.
And here is the HLP’s reply brief.
The Center for Constitutional Rights provides links to all the pleadings filed by all the parties in this matter.
While the government asserts that this legislation is a key component of its counter terrorism efforts and does not interfere with citizens’ rights to free speech and association, the opponents of the law, including the Center for Constitutional Law, co-founded by controversial attorney William Kuntsler, contend it infringes on constitutional rights:
In light of the government’s current fervor to brand groups that are not towing the line on U.S. foreign policy as “terrorist” organizations, this challenge to the criminalization of what have long been understood to be constitutionally protected activities is vitally important.
The Los Angeles Times reports that “from prisoners’ rights to environmental protection, laws set by the West’s powerful appeals court [the Ninth Circuit] were overturned in 15 of the 16 cases reviewed this term by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
I’d be surprised if this case doesn’t meet the same fate — reversal.
“laws set by the West’s powerful appeals court [the Ninth Circuit] were overturned in 15 of the 16 cases reviewed this term by the U.S. Supreme Court.””
Is there no limit to how many times a lower court can be overruled
before someone says, wait a minute, those judges have a problem?
“Is there no limit to how many times a lower court can be overruled
before someone says, wait a minute, those judges have a problem?”
It really doesn’t matter. These judges have lifetime appointments. There is only one real answer: don’t vote for Democrats—especially their presidential candidates!
According to this Reuters’ account, the case may pose a more difficult problem for the court than I anticipated.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303082.html
On the other hand, oral argument comments are not a sure fire predictor.
Facts:
This case originated in the Clinton Administration as HLP v. Reno, next was litigated through the Bush Administration and is now HLP v. Holder.
There are First Amendmentt issues at stake in this matter. There is the vagueness of “material support” and “terrorism” at issue in the fed. statutes. There are three federal criminal statutes dealing with “material support”, and all three are vague.
Before you bash the Ninth Circuit (shock! gasp!) you may want to read today’s “SCOTUSblog” to get an idea of how far-reaching the interpretation by the US Gov. is for “material support”, “training” and “personnel”. Even Justice Kennedy stated that this case is “difficult”. For example, at oral arguments:
“Under further questioning, however, she (Solicitor General Elena Kagan) talked herself into some trouble in arguing that the law might make it a criminal act for a blacklisted group even to hire a lawyer to put its views before a U.S. court, or to use an American as its advocate for peaceful aims before the United Nations…And she told Stevens that, if one of the Project supporters involved in this case — California college professor Ralph Fertig — approached the United Nations as an agent of one of the listed groups, he would be covered by the law.”
As for its fate, who knows? Reversal or remand to lower court with instruction to apply strict scrutiny to US Govt.?
avoidswork, We’ll have to see..The Act clearly doesn’t prevent anyone from writing a piece in support of such a group or suggesting how they might proceed in a legal case, it just prevents him from offering that advice directly. If Hamas gets free legal advice it does free up more money for weapons, doesn’t it? It seems to me Congress has made a reasonable effort to permit citizens to express their views while denying the terrorists material support.
Fertig could write a proposed presentation for the UN and have it published. Hamas could find someone else not covered by the law to deliver it.