SCOTUS to Hear Oral Arguments on Challenge to Anti-Terror Law
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.?
