2339B upheld by SCOTUS in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

* Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (SCT June 21, 2010)

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito), the Supreme Court has overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling insofar as it had held portions of 18 USC 2339B (the 1996 material support statute) to be unconstitutional. The full opinion is posted here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf

It time permits, I will circulate a summary of the analysis later today. Suffice to say for now that the majority was persuaded that the sort of activity the plaintiffs sought to engage in would facilitate the capacity of DFTOs to cause harm.

By Robert M. Chesney

Robert M. Chesney is Charles I. Francis Professor in Law at UT-Austin School of Law. Chesney is a national security law specialist, with a particular interest in problems associated with terrorism. Professor Chesney recently served in the Justice Department in connection with the Detainee Policy Task Force created by Executive Order 13493. He is a member of the Advisory Committee of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security, a senior editor for the Journal of National Security Law & Policy, an associate member of the Intelligence Science Board, a non-resident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the American Law Institute. Professor Chesney has published extensively on topics ranging from detention and prosecution in the counterterrorism context to the states secrets privilege. He served previously as chair of the Section on National Security Law of the Association of American Law Schools and as editor of the National Security Law Report (published by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security). His upcoming projects include two books under contract with Oxford University Press, one concerning the evolution of detention law and policy and the other examining the judicial role in national security affairs.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *