Supreme Court upholds law against advising terrorists

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that human rights advocates can be prosecuted if they give advice to members of a foreign terrorist group, even if they urge them to settle their disputes through peaceful means.

The 6-3 decision upheld a broad anti-terrorism law that makes it a crime for Americans to provide “material support” to a designated terrorist group, including by offering them advice or training.

The law had been challenged on free-speech grounds by several human rights advocates, including USC professor Ralph Fertig. He had worked with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, known as the PKK, an outlawed group which supports independence for the Kurds in Turkey. Fertig said he firmly opposed violence and terrorism, but he believed he should be permitted to advise the groups on resolving its disputes through the United Nations.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Fertig and the others are free to speak on their own on behalf of the Kurds. However, they are in danger of criminal prosecution, he said, if these advocates work with the PKK in giving legal advice.

“Providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization,” Roberts said.

In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the 1st Amendment should protect these human rights advocates from prosecution, except when it can be shown they knew they were aiding “unlawful terrorist actions.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined his dissent.

Congress strengthened the anti-terrorism law in 1996 and made it a crime to provide “material support” to terrorist groups. At first, this measure was understood to prevent Americans from sending money to groups in the Mideast whose activities included both providing education and carrying out terrorist acts.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. government has used the law to prosecute persons who traveled to Afghanistan and underwent training with Al Qaeda.

All the while, Fertig and the Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles had been challenging the law. They argued that the words “advice” or “training” should not be read so broadly as to forbid peace advocates from advising foreign groups to steer away from violence and terrorism.

They won before federal judges in California who said the Constitution does not allow prosecuting persons for advocating peaceful resolutions of disputes. The Obama administration appealed and won a reversal from the Supreme Court on Monday in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.

“We are deeply disappointed,” said David Cole, a lawyer who represented Fertig. “The Court said that the 1st Amendment permits Congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong.”

david.savage@latimes.com