In his essay “The Supreme Court, Material Support, and the Lasting Impact of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project for the Wake Forest Law Review, Strauss Center Distinguished Scholar and UT Law Professor Robert Chesney discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project and its implications for federal criminal law in relation to terrorism.

View This Article

In his essay “The Supreme Court, Material Support, and the Lasting Impact of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project” for the Wake Forest Law Review, Strauss Center Distinguished Scholar and UT Law Professor Robert Chesney discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project and its implications for federal criminal law in relation to terrorism. He writes that the Supreme Court has been vocal on issues of military detention and trial before military commissions associated it with terrorist activity. With this June 2010 decision, the Supreme Court has rejected constitutional challenges to a counterterrorism statute. Of key importance to this case is the material support law, which essentially prohibits the provision of material support and resources to terrorist organizations. Chesney emphasizes the importance of this law as potentially limiting the amount of material assistance and support from dangerous persons that terrorist organizations receive.

Chesney explores several ways in which this statute may violate constitutional amendments, including limitations on freedom of expression and freedom of association. He provides insight into the majority opinion of the case by analyzing these constitutional concerns. He examines the questions of whether the statute is too vague and whether it infringes upon First Amendment rights. He then outlines the majority’s scrutiny of the Humanitarian Law Project’s (HLP) intent in providing assistance to a foreign terrorist organization, what form of support the HLP provided, and what types of training the HLP offered. Chesney agrees with the majority; however, because it operated within a narrow focus, he cautions against using Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project to dictate the outcomes of similar cases in the future. Chesney concludes that this Supreme Court decision may open up a new discourse on the junction of national security and civil liberties jurisprudence.