Muslims slam Supreme Court decision on `material support’

(RNS) Muslim and civil rights groups are criticizing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upholds a federal law prohibiting “material support” for accused terrorist groups, which critics maintain could include humanitarian aid. The law, which the Supreme Court upheld Monday (June 21) in a 6-3 decision, prohibits providing cash and weapons to terrorist groups, but […]

(RNS) Muslim and civil rights groups are criticizing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upholds a federal law prohibiting “material support” for accused terrorist groups, which critics maintain could include humanitarian aid.

The law, which the Supreme Court upheld Monday (June 21) in a 6-3 decision, prohibits providing cash and weapons to terrorist groups, but also training in how to hold elections and peacefully resolve conflict.

Critics say the law, which exempts medicine and religious materials, is vague and has implications for Muslim charities and individual Muslim donors who want to fulfill their religious duty to aid the poor. Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argued the law violated the First Amendment right of free speech.


“The maze of government laws has created a lot of fear and confusion that puts a chill on Muslim giving,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, a civil rights group.

“For Muslim Americans, the problematic piece is that it affirms the idea that the donor’s intent — like promoting a peaceful cause or giving money for humanitarian purposes — that that’s irrelevant.”

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that the law infringed on free speech protection, but said that was subordinate to the dangers posed by terrorism. Even if support is meant for solely peaceful purposes, Roberts wrote, it could enable terrorism by allowing terrorist groups to use more of their own resources for violent purposes.

Government prosecutors say the law, adopted in 1996 and strengthened after 9/11 as part of the Patriot Act, has been vital in fighting terrorism, and has helped them convict more than 70 defendants for violating the “material support” provision.

The case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, drew interest from several religious organizations. Former President Jimmy Carter and the Chicago-based Christian Peacemakers Teams joined a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the plaintiffs, while the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Institute for National Security joined briefs supporting the government.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!