Running head: HOLDER V. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT 1
Michael Cullars
Liberty University
HLSC 520
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)
Professor Peter Brake
HOLDER V. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT 2
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)
Facts:
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) U.S. Supreme Court case involved the
Humanitarian Law Project’s (HLPs) legal action against the U.S. Government, challenging the
constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. Under this statute, knowingly supporting Foreign
Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) designated by the Secretary of State, with material support or
resources will subject violators to criminal prosecution. The HLP represented two United States
citizens and six organizations which had supported the humanitarian and political efforts of the
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTL). Because the
Secretary of State designated both organizations as an FTO, providing material support to them
were grounds for criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. The litigants contend that
the ambiguities of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B violated their 5th amendment rights and their freedom of
speech and association rights as prescribed under the 1st amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. The litigants sued the federal government and challenged 18 U.S.C. § 2339B ban
of providing support training, expert advice, or help, service, and personnel to organizations
placed on the FTO list.
Procedural History:
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) had been through litigation for 12 years.
Within the 12 years, the Federal District Court had rejected the litigants claim that 18 U.S.C. §
2339B violated their first amendment rights but agreed with their argument that the terminology
inscribed in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B “expert advice or assistance” was ambiguous and
unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit Court of appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision but
remanded the case back to them because Congress changed 18 U.S.C. § 2339B by inscribing the
HOLDER V. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT 3
word “service” In the Statute and established the mental state standard required to violate 18
U.S.C. § 2339B. The additional word “service” did not influence the District Court’s decision
about the ambiguity of the language presented in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. Once again, the Appellant
Court affirmed the decision of the lower Court. Upon the completion of the Appellant Court
ruling, the government moved to petition for certiorari. The litigants countered the
government’s legal action by filing a conditional cross-petition. The U.S. Supreme Court
approved both requests. After Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court. In a 6-3 majority ruling, the U.S Supreme Court partially
affirmed and reversed the lower’s court decision and remanded the case back for further
proceedings within the context of their opinion.
Issue:
Does the material support statute, under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, violate/restrict an
individual’s right to free speech and association under the 1 st
Amendment when aiding an FTO?
Rule:
No. According to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B does not violate the
1st Amendment. In the matters of national security and as prescribed under the Preamble of the
Constitution, Congress reserves the right to institute controls on the First Amendment to ensure
the safety and protection of its citizens from terrorist threats and other hazards.
Application:
The litigants' justification to continue supporting the PKK and the LTTE violated 18
U.S.C. § 2339B. According to U.S.C. § 2339B, violators are subject to criminal sanctions. The
HLP challenged this statute claiming that its provisions violated their clients' 1st and 5th
Amendment rights. The litigation process of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) lasted
HOLDER V. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT 4
twelve years. The U.S. Supreme Court only addressed the 1st Amendment violation portion of
the case. The U.S. Supreme Court compared Scales v. United States (1961) which the litigants
relied on for their defense, to the language inscribed in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. Unlike Scales v.
United States (1961), 18 U.S.C. § 2339B does not criminalize an individual for their membership
in an FTO. Instead, it prohibits the conduct of providing such organizations with material
support which would further support their terrorist operations. Under the Preamble of the
Constitution, Congress reserves the right to emplace provisions to protect America from
terroristic threats and other hazards.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court correctly ruled 18 U.S.C. § 2339B did not violate the
1st Amendment rights of the litigants. Congress reserves the right to impose
restrictions/prohibitions on certain rights and privileges in defense of America. "Though I walk
amid trouble, you preserve my life; you stretch out your hand against the wrath of my enemies,
and your right hand delivers me" Psalm 138:7 (ESV).
References
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 177 L. Ed. 2d 355 (2010).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
