"Material Support" too Vague?
On Tuesday the court heard oral arguments in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The oral arguments (found here) addressed the following issues: 1) Whether 18 U.S.C. 2339B’s prohibition of “any . . . service, . . . training, [or] expert advice or assistance,” to a designated foreign terrorist organization, is unconstitutionally vague and 2) Whether the criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B on the provision of “expert advice or assistance” “derived from scientific [or] technical … knowledge” and “personnel” is a constitutional violation when such speech furthers lawful, nonviolent activities of certain organizations.
According to SCOTUSblog Justice Scalia, along with other Justices, questioned whether any kind of aid can become a benefit for its violent activities. SCOTUSblog concludes that if the answer is yes, then the Court can escape the questions currently before it. See here for the full analysis of the oral arguments.