Abstract
In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress could constitutionally prohibit attorneys from providing legal assistance and advice regarding lawful nonviolent conduct to groups that the Secretary of State has designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). The plaintiffs argued that the “material support” provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), as amended by post-9/11 legislation, violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and to free association. While the Court discussed the plaintiffs’ Speech Clause claims at length, the Court rejected their free association claim cursorily. The Court explained that the constitutional right to association protected membership in an organization, and the challenged provisions did not prohibit plaintiffs from membership in any organization. Rather, according to the Court, plaintiffs were merely prohibited from providing “material support” to organizations, which was constitutional— even in the context of prohibiting legal advice regarding international human rights.
Recommended Citation
Tarkington, Margaret
(2012)
"Freedom of Attorney-Client Association,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2012:
No.
2, Article 12.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2012/iss2/12