Supreme Court upholds anti-terror statute

WASHINGTON, June 21 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, determined Monday that the U.S. government's ability to criminalize material support for terrorists is constitutional.

The ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It keeps intact a provision of the Patriot Act despite arguments that it threatened free speech of organizations wanting to assist non-violent activities of groups listed on the U.S. terror watch list -- in this case the Kurdistan Workers' Party, identified as PKK for Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka.

The Humanitarian Law Project and similar groups argued they were involved in peaceful, legal activities of the PKK and the LTTE, but the court said providing money for non-violent purposes could free up resources for terrorist acts.

The decision affirmed in part and reversed in part a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, sending it back for further adjudication.

The high court concluded that, as applied in this case to these individuals and groups, the Patriot Act statute in question doesn't violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Roberts said the court wasn't deciding whether future applications of the material-support statute to speech or advocacy would survive a First Amendment challenge.

"It simply holds that (the statute) does not violate the freedom of speech as applied to the particular types of support these plaintiffs seek to provide," Roberts wrote.

Roberts also rejected the argument that the material-support statute violated a plaintiff's right to freedom of association because, citing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, it "does not penalize mere association, but prohibits the act of giving foreign terrorist groups material support."

Roberts said the government, represented by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagen as solicitor general, erred in arguing the only thing at issue was content, not speech, and incorrectly cited the standard of review.

The statute in question "regulates plaintiffs' speech to the PKK and the LTTE on the basis of its content," Roberts wrote. "Even if the material support statute generally functions as a regulation of conduct, as applied to plaintiffs the conduct triggering coverage under the statute consists of communicating a message."

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said that, while agreeing that the statute was not vague, "I cannot agree with the court's conclusion 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."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined Breyer in dissent. Justices Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Roberts.