On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Files Brief in U.S. Supreme Court Challenging Terrorism Law That Criminalizes Peaceful, Nonviolent Speech
WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The Rutherford Institute and the Constitution Project filed a friend of the court brief with the Court challenging federal "material support" anti-terrorism laws that threaten to undermine the First Amendment rights of organizations and individuals to engage in free speech and free association that is lawful, peaceful, and nonviolent. Both The Rutherford Institute and the Constitution Project have worked diligently to preserve the principles of free expression placed in jeopardy by the material support bar. Both amici recognize that a balance can and must be struck between the government's pursuit of national security and the Constitution's protection of free speech and association.
A copy of the Institute's brief is available here.
"In their current form, the material support laws raise serious constitutional issues under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "While cutting off support of terrorist activity is an important and legitimate part of the United States' counter-terrorism strategy, it must not do so at the risk of undermining constitutional freedoms--especially speech that is intended to further only lawful, peaceful, and nonviolent activities."
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project involves federal laws prohibiting "material support" of terrorist groups and challenges the application of these laws to organizations and individuals who seek to provide human rights training to a designated group. The amicus brief filed by The Rutherford Institute and the Constitution Project argues that applying the material support statutes to punish pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent activities is unconstitutionally overbroad. Attorneys also pointed out that the case affords the Supreme Court a much-needed opportunity to clarify the constitutional limits on Congress's power to forbid American citizens from advocating on behalf of and directly participating in organizations the government deems a threat to the national security. Insisting that the challenged provisions of the material support laws conflict with First Amendment protections for free speech and freedom of association, the brief argues that the laws should therefore be struck down by the Court.
Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit civil liberties organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional and human rights. The Institute provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.
Press Contact
,
