Legal Features

Reforming the Material Support Laws: Constitutional Concerns Presented by Prohibitions on Material Support to "Terrorist Organizations"

The Rutherford Institute is part of a bipartisan coalition of former government officials, scholars, practitioners, and other experts serving on the Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Committee that have proposed reforms to federal laws prohibiting material support for terrorism that are needed to ensure constitutional liberties. The recommendations come at an especially critical time, as the Humanitarian Law Project recently filed its opening brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, challenging the application of federal material support laws to punish pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent ends (Rutherford, along with the Constitution Project, has filed an amicus brief in this case).

The consensus report, Reforming the Material Support Laws: Constitutional Concerns Presented by Prohibitions on Material Support to "Terrorist Organizations," proposes eight reforms to remedy serious First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns created by existing federal law. The Liberty and Security Committee calls for narrowing the scope of conduct prohibited by the material support statute, so that pure speech furthering lawful ends would not be considered criminal conduct. As the statement notes:

Our government should have the tools needed to apprehend and punish not just terrorist leaders, but also those who work to facilitate and enable acts of terrorism. But in providing the legal authority to prohibit and punish such conduct, it is essential that the law respect constitutional freedoms.

The report also calls for reforms to protect the due process rights of organizations in the United States that are designated as "terrorist organizations" to challenge these executive branch decisions in court.

To read Reforming the Material Support Laws, click here.