Supreme Court upholds anti-terror law

[Valin]

Washington Post:

Robert Barnes
June 21, 2010

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that forbids providing training and advice to terrorist organizations even about entirely peaceful and legal activities, saying it does not violate the free speech rights of those who want to help.
The court ruled 6 to 3 that Congress and the executive branch had legitimate reasons for barring "material support" to foreign organizations deemed to be terrorists in the USA Patriot Act.

Those challenging the law "simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization -- even seemingly benign support -- bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
"That judgment, however, is entitled to significant weight, and we have persuasive evidence before us to sustain it."
He was joined by the court's conservatives -- Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- as well as its most liberal member, retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the relatively unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, saying the court had abandoned its role of protecting individual liberties under the First Amendment because of national security threats Congress did not adequately justify.
"In such cases, our decisions must reflect the Constitution's grant of foreign affairs and defense powers to the president and to Congress but without denying our own special judicial obligation to protect the constitutional rights of individuals," Breyer said.
"That means that national security does not always win."
He was joined in the dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

The Obama administration said the law has been used about 150 times since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks. But it has rarely been used for the kind of speech involved in this case.

(Snip)

The case is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.