Does the First Amendment protect free speech if humanitarian groups want to provide support to designated terrorist organizations? Must a humanitarian group prove they have no intent to further terrorist activity in order to provide help? Can a humanitarian provider further a peaceful mission without contributing to, or legitimizing, an organization’s terrorist goals?

Plaintiffs are supporters of the Kurdistan Workers Party (KWP) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The KWP and LTTE engage in a variety of both lawful and unlawful activities. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the government from enforcing sections of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The AEDPA authorizes the Secretary of State to designate group as a "foreign terrorist organizations." Section 303 of the Act makes it a crime for anyone to provide "material support or resources" to even the nonviolent activities of a designated organization. In previous cases, the courts have held that Section 303 was unconstitutionally vague.

Congress then passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, amending the AEDPA. It added a state of mind requirement that individuals must "knowingly" provide "material support or resources" in order to violate the Act. Congress also added terms to the Act that further clarified what constituted "material support or resources." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the terms "service," "training," or "other specialized knowledge" within the AEDPA, as applied to the plaintiffs, were unconstitutionally vague.

Issue: Are provisions of the AEDPA prohibiting providing "any … service, … training, [or] other specialized knowledge" to foreign terrorist organizations unconstitutionally vague? Decision: No. The material support provision of the AEDPA is constitutional as applied to the particular forms of support that the plaintiffs wish to provide to terrorist organizations. The Court held that the terms at issue -- "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service," and "personnel" -- are not similar to terms like "annoying" and "indecent" that have been struck down as being too vague. The Court recognized that the statute may not be clear in every respect, but it is clear enough with respect to the plaintiffs in this case.

Dissent: Justice Stephen G. Breyer agreed that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. However, he disagreed that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally for engaging in coordinated teaching and advocacy furthering the designated organizations' lawful political objectives.

Courts will evaluate the Constitutionality of statutes under the Equal Protection Clause using a three-tier system: Rational scrutiny – Economic classifications The government need only show that the law is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest Intermediate scrutiny - Gender and illegitimacy classifications The government must show that the law serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest Strict scrutiny - Protected classes and fundamental rights The government must show that the law serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest

Does the material support provision of the AEDPA violate freedom of speech by criminalizing the act of providing material support without requiring proof that a humanitarian organization or person had specific intent to further terrorism activity? US Supreme Court: Under strict scrutiny analysis, the government must show that restricting First Amendment-protected activities serves a compelling government interest

The government has a compelling state interest to prevent terrorist activity The AEDPA is necessary to promote that interest The government may ban any organization or person from providing material support to designated terrorist organization, even in the form of speech Any contribution, even in the form of speech, to a terrorist organization legitimizes the organizations’ terrorist activity