Tag: SCOTUS

See anything missing here from ALEC Board member and Virginia House Speaker Bill "Legalized Corruption" Howell? The strength of the American legal system is measured...

by Lowell Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Tuesday, June 28. Clinton, Warren team up to trash Trump ("Warren...

From SCOTUSblog: "Decision of the Fourth Circuit is vacated and remanded. Unanimous Court...Holding: An official act in the statutes at issue is a decision...

Great news from the Supreme Court a few minutes ago. See Josh Israel's tweet below, and also Progress Virginia's statement. Meanwhile, poor Bill Howell,...

The Washington Post headline on today's Supreme Court hearings in the 3rd CD racial gerrymandering case is "Supreme Court may decide against Va. Republicans...

by Andy Schmookler Note: This piece will be running in newspapers in my conservative congressional district (VA-06). In 2012, Americans engaged in the constitutional process for...

It was expected that SCOTUS would support the government's right to prosecute those who give material support for terrorist acts.  That is as it should be.  But, yesterday the Court went further.  It issued its support (6-3) for the government to use the so-called Patriot Act to charge those who advice in methods of peacemaking and due process those who either are or later become designated terrorist groups.  And so, the ruling puts into question the works of groups such as The Humanitarian Law Project.  That organization, which brought the suit, apparently advises groups, in such peaceful processes as how to bring up a grievance to the United Nations or how to work constructively through other peacemaking organizations. The Carter Center has also raised concerns about the ruling's potential to affect its peacemaking efforts.   Here's a partial description of the ruling from SCOTUSblog.com.

The cases of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, et al. (08-1498) and Humanitarian Law Project, et al., v. Holder (09-89) are the only war-on-terrorism cases the Court will decide this Term. They involved the federal law that bans "material support" to listed foreign terrorist organizations - the law that is the government's favorite legal weapon against terrorists. Although that law is most often used for criminal charges against violent actions or threats of violence, Monday's decision did not involve that situation.  The groups and individual involved do not support any terrorist actions by the listed groups.  Rather, they wanted to avoid criminal prosecution for what they considered free speech or other forms of public advocacy to help the listed groups achieve peaceful goals.

Here is the reference.