Supreme Court rules 6-3 in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project that the material support law survives a First Amendment challenge

The Supreme Court upheld the federal material support statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, on June 21, 2010, ruling 6-3 that prohibiting coordinated speech and advocacy with designated foreign terrorist organizations did not violate the First Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, holding that even peaceful, nonviolent assistance — such as training a designated group in human rights law or teaching it to petition the United Nations — constituted material support because it could free resources for terrorism. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor dissented, arguing the ruling criminalized core political speech. The decision became one of only two instances in First Amendment history in which the Court upheld a content-based speech restriction under strict scrutiny, and it significantly curtailed the ability of civil society to engage with designated foreign organizations.