The June 2010 Supreme Court decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project upheld the constitutionality of the material support law which makes it illegal for U.S. citizens and organizations to provide support, including expert advice and training, to designated terrorist organizations regardless of whether that support is intended to promote peace. This Peace Brief captures the discussion from a public event convened by the U.S. Institute of Peace on September 10, 2010.

65

Summary

  • The June 21st Supreme Court decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project affirmed the constitutionality of the material support statue which makes it illegal for U.S. citizens and organizations to provide material support, including expert advice or assistance, service or personnel, to designated terrorist organizations regardless of whether the support is intended to promote nonviolence and peace.
  • The material support law and the process of listing terrorist groups provides the U.S. government with an enhanced legal structure to arrest alleged terrorists and prevent terrorist acts.
  • However, it is unclear that the process is effective in practice or that enhancing the government’s legal power to prevent acts of terrorism outweighs the unintentional consequences of prohibiting nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from working on the front lines of conflict zones to promote conflict resolution.
  • Looking to the future, NGOs can work with the State Department and Congress to find ways to allow peacebuilding and humanitarian organizations to continue their operations legally, while also not threatening national security.

About this Brief

The June 2010 Supreme Court decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project upheld the constitutionality of the material support law which makes it illegal for U.S. citizens and organizations to provide support, including expert advice and training, to designated terrorist organizations regardless of whether that support is intended to promote peace.

This Peace Brief captures the discussion from a public event convened by the U.S. Institute of Peace on September 10, 2010 to better understand how the decision affects the peacebuilding community. The author, Stephanie Schwartz, is a program specialist in the Institute’s Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution.


Related Publications

Security and Justice in Post-Revolution Libya

Security and Justice in Post-Revolution Libya

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Three years after the death of Muammar Qaddafi and the end of the revolution in Libya, security and justice are stalled and elusive despite the proliferation of security providers. The power of the gun prevails over the rule of law. Many see no end in sight. Based on a nationwide survey and drawn from interviews and focus group sessions, this report—supported by the USIP and the Small Arms Survey—tracks security and justice in Libya from before the revolution through today, its realities, and...

Type: Peaceworks

Justice in Transition in Yemen

Justice in Transition in Yemen

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

This research is part of a three-year United States Institute of Peace (USIP) project that explores how Yemen’s rule of law and local justice and security issues have been affected in the post-Arab Spring transition period. A complement to other analytical and thematic pieces, this large-scale mapping provides data on factors influencing justice provision in half of Yemen’s governorates. Its goal is to support more responsive programming and justice sector reform. Field research was managed b...

Type: Peaceworks

Civil Defense Groups

Civil Defense Groups

Thursday, July 31, 2014

More than three hundred defense groups provide security to local communities in states around the world. While it is true that such groups can be a resource-efficient means for states to provide law and order to their communities, it is also true that they can worsen security.

Type: Special Report

Women's Access to Justice in Afghanistan

Women's Access to Justice in Afghanistan

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Since the fall of the Taliban in 2002, gains in women’s rights and access to justice in Afghanistan have been remarkable, yet women’s rights remain extremely limited. How do women in Afghanistan seek justice when their rights are violated? What barriers do they face in pursuing justice or receiving a fair outcome? This report draws on interviews and focus group discussions held in Afghanistan in 2011 and 2012 to determine answers to these and related questions and to recommend ways forward. ...

Type: Peaceworks

Gender

View All Publications