2/18/2018 Holder v.

Humanitarian Law Project | Oyez

Holder v. Humanitarian Law

Project
PETITIONER RESPONDENT

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al. Humanitarian Law Project, et al.

LOCATION

U.S. Capitol Building

DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY

08-1498 Roberts Court (/courts?court=Roberts Court )

LOWER COURT

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITATION ADVOCATES

561 US 1 (2010) David D. Cole (advocates/david_d_cole)

(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1) for Humanitarian Law Project, et al.

Elena Kagan (advocates/elena_kagan)

GRANTED
for Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General, et al.
Sep 30, 2009

ARGUED

Feb 23, 2010

DECIDED

Jun 21, 2010

Facts of the case

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1498 1/4
2/18/2018 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project | Oyez
Among the plainti s in this case are supporters of the
Kurdistan Workers Party ("KWP") and the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("LTTE"). The KWP and LTTE
engage in a variety of both lawful and unlawful activities.
They sought an injunction to prevent the government
from enforcing sections of the Antiterrorism and
E ective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"). Section 302
authorizes the Secretary of State to designate a group as
a "foreign terrorist organization." Section 303 makes it a
crime for anyone to provide "material support or
resources" to even the nonviolent activities of a
designated organization. In previous cases, the courts
have held that Section 303 was unconstitutionally vague.
Congress then passed the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act ("IRTPA") which amended the
AEDPA. It added a state of mind requirement that
individuals "knowingly" provide "material support or
resources" in order to violate the Act. Congress also
added terms to the Act that further clari ed what
constituted "material support or resources." The
government moved for summary judgment arguing that
challenged provisions of the AEDPA were not
unconstitutionally vague. The district court granted a
partial motion for summary judgment, but held that
some parts of the Act were unconstitutionally vague.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
a rmed, holding that the terms "service," "training," or
"other specialized knowledge" within the AEDPA, as
applied to the plainti s, were unconstitutionally vague.

Question
Are provisions of the AEDPA which prohibit providing
"any . . . service, . . . training, [or] other specialized
knowledge" to designated foreign terrorist organizations
unconstitutionally vague?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1498 2/4
2/18/2018 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project | Oyez

Conclusion
Sort:  by seniority by ideology
6–3 DECISION FOR ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET

AL.

MAJORITY OPINION BY JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.

John Paul Stevens Anthony M. Kennedy

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

G. Roberts, Jr. Antonin Scalia Clarence Thomas Stephen G. Breyer Sonia Sotoma

Not as applied to the plainti s. The Supreme Court held

that the material support provision of the AEDPA is
constitutional as applied to the particular forms of
support that the plainti s seek to provide to terrorist
organizations. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing
for the majority, the Court reasoned that, as applied, the
provision in question is not vague. Here, the statutory
terms at issue -- "training," "expert advice or
assistance," "service," and "personnel" -- are not
similar to terms like "annoying" and "indecent" that the
Court has struck down as being too vague. The Court
recognized that the statute may not be clear in every
respect, but it is clear enough with respect to the
plainti s in this case.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. He agreed that
the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. However,
Justice Breyer disagreed that the Constitution permits the
government to prosecute the plainti s criminally for
engaging in coordinated teaching and advocacy
furthering the designated organizations' lawful political
objectives. He reasoned that the government had not met
its burden to show that the speech prohibited by the
statute served a compelling governmental interest.

Cite this page

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1498 3/4
2/18/2018 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project | Oyez
APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
"Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project." Oyez, 18 Feb. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1498.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1498 4/4