Case Brief: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Case Brief: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Farhat Mir
Liberty University
HLSC520: Legal Issues in Homeland Security
Dr. Colin Ashburn
August 09, 2025
Case Brief: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
1
Facts: In Supreme court case Holder v. Humanitarian Law project 561 U.S. 1 (2010) is the
Supreme Court's first decision pitting the constitution's first amendment rights against national
security interest after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This case upheld a US patriot
Act which prohibited material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations even if that
support was with the intention of nonviolent lawful activities.
The plaintiffs in this case were two US citizens, one retired federal judge, a surgeon and six
nonprofit organizations. In this case the humanitarian law project and other plaintiffs challenged
the federal patriotic act that prohibits providing material support and resources to foreign
terrorist organizations by arguing that it violated their constitution’s first amendment right of
freedom of speech and association. Their argument was based on the fact that they were
providing the training based on nonviolent, conflict resolution and humanitarian basis.
Procedural History:
The plaintiffs in this case were two US citizens, one retired federal judge, a surgeon and six
nonprofit organizations. They filed a lawsuit in 1998 when they provided humanitarian based
training to Kurdistan workers party (KWP) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The
training they provided was about conflict resolution and human rights. Both of these international
organizations were designated as terrorist organizations by thus. Government department of state.”
Criminal statute 18 U.S.C. 2339B prohibits “knowingly providing material support or resources
to a foreign terrorist organization.” [p. 2] the definition of material support or resources
encompasses many different types of activities. At issue in this case is the prohibition of
providing “training,” “services,”
“expert advice or assistance,” and “personnel.”(Charity-and-Security, 2010). This case made its
way up to federal courts including the ninth circuit court of appeal which invalidated the
definition of training, expert advice and assistance derived from specialized knowledge as
Case Brief: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
2
unconstitutionally vague. The ninth circuit appeal court upheld the definition of expert advice
derived from technical or scientific knowledge. The ninth circuit court ruling was specific to
humanitarian law project and the court decision required a more specific definition which
would have helped many other charitable organizations when it comes to the training and
support based on humanitarian grounds.
Issue: The Supreme Court decision in this case sparked a debate and criticism about the
decision’s impact on first amendment rights and ability of humanitarian organizations
operations to work in conflict zones. The humanitarian law project (HLP) and other plaintiffs of
this case argued the vagueness of term material support, assistance and training which leaves
the humanitarian organizations with not having a clear concept and understanding of what's
prohibited.
Plaintiffs argued that material support for the patriotic act violated their first and Fifth
Amendment rights or freedom of speech and association. Their arguments were based on the
fact that they aimed to provide nonviolent support, training and assistance to the Kurdistan
workers party and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam both designated as terrorist
organizations by the US.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of first amendment rights and ultimately
decided in favor of the government by arguing that even benign support and assistance could
free up the resources for terrorist activities and can establish legitimacy for these terrorist
organizations. The court decision significantly supported the government’s arguments
concerning national security and foreign policy concluding that Congress and the Executive are
uniquely positioned to assess the impact of such activities on national security.
Rule(s):
Case Brief: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
3
The Court considered the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which defines "material support
or resources" to include services, training, and expert advice or assistance. The court also
reviewed the constitutional standards for reviewing the restrictions on speech under the first
amendment. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim that their first amendment rights were
violated. The court also reviewed if the first amendment restrictions were content based or
neutral based and the level of scrutiny. The court declined to apply the strict scrutiny.
Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the government had not
provided sufficient evidence that the specific speech and activities of the plaintiffs would harm
national security.
Application Analysis: The Supreme Court held the statute as applied to humanitarian law
project (HLP) proposed activities did not violate the first amendment right. The court found that
based on the terrorists and terrorist organizations' activities seemingly nonviolent support,
assistance and training can free up the resources to these terrorist organizations and help
terrorists to carry out their attacks against the homeland. The Supreme Court deferred to
Congress's judgment on national security and foreign policy matters, finding that the statute
served a compelling government interest in preventing terrorism and that the restrictions on
material support were sufficiently designed to protect the homeland against terrorist
organizations and their activities. .
Conclusion: The Supreme Court reversed the nine circuit appeal court decision and upheld the
constitutional value of the material support statute as it applied to humanitarian law projects’
proposed activities. The Court's 6-3 decision affirmed that the government can prohibit
providing material support, including training and expert advice, to designated foreign terrorist
organizations, even if those activities are intended to be peaceful.
Case Brief: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
4
This ruling significantly impacted the humanitarian organizations and it prevented them from
providing any sort of assistance, training and support to the groups designated as terrorist
organizations by the US government.
The court ruling provides the balance between the constitution’s first amendment rights and the
national security issues. When humanitarian organizations provide support to some of these
foreign organizations they do not know their agendas and the intentions. Sometimes the
support, training and the assistance provided based on humanitarian grounds can end up
benign in wrong hands and can be used for harmful purposes. “America places on terrorist
groups, those groups who are determined will still find the ways and means to commit acts of
violence. Nothing has demonstrated this more clearly than the situation with Iran, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the War on
Terror. Unfortunately, a decision such as this is irreconcilable with prior law, offensive to the
Constitution, and ineffective at achieving its purpose. For the reasons suggested in this Note, §
2339B needs revision and clarification to avoid trampling upon one of the most important of
individual rights” (n.d.)
References:
Charity-and-Security. (2010, June 21). Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: Addressing
the Impact of Material Support Laws on Peacebuilding Programs - Charity & Security
Network. Charity & Security Network. https://charityandsecurity.org/litigation/hlp/
(n.d.). Https://Dc.law.mc.edu/Cgi/Viewcontent.cgi?Article=1670&Context=Lawreview.
Case Brief: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
