The intersection of free speech and national security is usually a messy place. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to make it even messier. When the ruling for Holder v Humanitarian Law Project came down, it basically sent a shockwave through every NGO, human rights group, and peace-building mission on the planet. Honestly, it changed the rules of the game for anyone trying to stop a war.
The case wasn't about bombs or money transfers. It was about words. Specifically, it was about whether you can teach a terrorist group how to use international law to resolve their grievances peacefully without ending up in a federal prison. The court said "no."
The Strange Reality of Material Support
Here is the thing. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, it’s a crime to provide "material support" to any group the government labels as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Most people hear "material support" and think of crates of AK-47s or bags of cash. That makes sense. But the statute is way broader than that. It includes "training," "expert advice or assistance," and "service."
The Humanitarian Law Project, led by retired judge Ralph Fertig, wanted to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka. They weren't trying to help them blow things up. Quite the opposite. They wanted to teach them how to petition the United Nations and how to engage in peaceful political advocacy. They wanted to provide a roadmap out of violence.
The government's argument, which the Supreme Court eventually bought, was that any support—even support intended to promote peace—is fungible. If you teach a group how to negotiate a peace treaty, you’re freeing up their time and resources to go commit more violence. Or, perhaps more subtly, you’re giving them "legitimacy." This is the core of the Holder v Humanitarian Law Project dilemma. If you give a "bad" group a seat at the table and teach them the rules of the game, are you helping them stop being terrorists, or are you just helping them be more effective at their overall mission?
Justice Roberts and the "Fungibility" Trap
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He didn't mince words. He argued that the First Amendment doesn't protect speech that is coordinated with or under the direction of a designated terrorist group. In his view, the "expert advice" the Humanitarian Law Project wanted to give was a "service."
It’s a tough pill to swallow. Usually, the First Amendment protects your right to say whatever you want, as long as you aren't inciting immediate violence. But Holder v Humanitarian Law Project carved out a huge exception. If you are talking to a "designated" group, and you are doing it to help them (even if "help" means "stop killing people"), you are potentially a criminal.
🔗 Read more: Recent Obituaries in Charlottesville VA: What Most People Get Wrong
Justice Breyer was not happy about this. In his dissent, he pointed out that the government never actually proved that teaching someone international law leads to more terrorism. He thought the court was basically giving the executive branch a blank check to silence anyone who talks to the "wrong" people. It’s a classic security-vs-liberty standoff, and in 2010, security won by a landslide.
The Real-World Fallout for Aid Workers
If you're an aid worker in a conflict zone, this ruling is a nightmare. Imagine you’re in a region controlled by a group on the FTO list. You need to distribute food. To do that safely, you have to talk to the local commanders. You might need to explain to them how to respect "humanitarian corridors" or how to follow the Geneva Conventions regarding civilian safety.
Because of Holder v Humanitarian Law Project, that conversation is a legal minefield.
- Are you providing "training" on international law?
- Is your "service" helping them look more legitimate to the local population?
- Could a federal prosecutor argue that your presence "bolsters" the group?
Groups like the Jimmy Carter Center and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have struggled with these boundaries for over a decade. The fear of "material support" charges has a massive chilling effect. It’s led to "de-risking," where banks refuse to transfer money to entire countries because they’re afraid a few cents might end up in the hands of a designated group. It effectively cripples diplomacy at the grassroots level.
Why It Still Matters in 2026
You might think a case from 2010 is old news. You'd be wrong. In our current global climate, the list of FTOs is constantly evolving. From various factions in the Middle East to groups involved in the shifting landscapes of Africa and Eastern Europe, the "material support" statute is the primary tool the U.S. uses to exert pressure.
But here’s the kicker: it often prevents the very outcomes we want. If the goal is to end an insurgency, you eventually have to talk to the insurgents. You have to show them a way to put down their guns and pick up a ballot. If the law makes it a crime to show them how to do that, you're basically stuck in a cycle of permanent warfare.
💡 You might also like: Trump New Gun Laws: What Most People Get Wrong
There's also the issue of "vagueness." What counts as "expert advice"? If a doctor treats a wounded member of an FTO, is that "service"? The courts have mostly said medical care is okay, but the line between "life-saving surgery" and "expert advice on public health" is blurry.
Breaking Down the Misconceptions
People often get two things wrong about this case.
First, they think it only applies to people in the U.S. It doesn't. The U.S. asserts "extraterritorial jurisdiction" over these crimes. If you are a U.S. citizen or your organization uses U.S. dollars, you are on the hook, regardless of where you are standing.
Second, they think you have to intend to help a terrorist act. Nope. The Supreme Court was very clear: you just have to know the group is a designated FTO. You don't have to want them to succeed in their violence. You can hate their guts and want them to stop. If you give them "expert advice" on how to stop, you've still broken the law.
Actionable Insights for Global Engagement
Navigating the post-Holder v Humanitarian Law Project world requires a high-wire act of legal compliance and ethical commitment. If you are involved in international advocacy or aid, you can't just wing it.
1. Know the List Inside Out
The FTO list managed by the State Department is the "holy grail" of what you can and cannot do. Check it religiously. But don't stop there. Also check the Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) list managed by OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control).
📖 Related: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
2. Independent Advocacy vs. Coordinated Speech
The court focused heavily on "coordination." If you are speaking about a group or criticizing a government's policy toward them, you are generally safe under the First Amendment. The danger starts when you speak to them or with them. Keep your advocacy independent. Don't take "assignments" or "directions" from any group on the list.
3. Seek General Licenses
In some conflict zones, the U.S. government issues "General Licenses" that allow certain types of humanitarian activity even in areas controlled by designated groups. These are your best friends. They provide a "safe harbor" for providing food, medicine, and basic education.
4. Document Your Intent and Impact
If you are engaging in peace-building, keep meticulous records of what was said. Focus on "unilateral" speech. If you are publishing a report that any group can read, that’s much safer than a private workshop for a specific group.
5. Consult Specialized Counsel
This isn't a "do it yourself" area of law. If your work involves contact with sanctioned entities, you need a lawyer who understands the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the material support statutes.
The legacy of Holder v Humanitarian Law Project is a world where peace is legally risky. It’s a world where the law assumes that teaching someone to follow the law is, ironically, a threat to national security. Until Congress or a future Court narrows the scope of "material support," the burden remains on human rights defenders to prove that their words aren't weapons. It's a heavy lift, but in a world on fire, someone has to keep trying to talk the arsonists down.
To stay compliant, always verify the latest designations on the Official Treasury OFAC Sanctions List. Awareness of these shifting boundaries is the only way to operate in high-risk zones without falling foul of federal law.
Protecting the right to speak for peace requires understanding the narrow corridors the law allows. Ensure your organization has a robust compliance framework that separates "general education" from "specific training" to avoid the pitfalls of the material support doctrine.