Jamie Raskin's Low Opinion of Women
Thank You, GOD!
Trump Slams Bad Bunny's Horrendous Halftime Show
Federal Judge Sentences Abilene Drug Trafficker to Life for Fentanyl Distribution
The Turning Point Halftime Show Crushed Expectations
Jeffries Calls Citizenship Proof ‘Voter Suppression’ as Majority of Americans Back Voter I...
Four Reasons Why the Washington Post Is Dying
Foreign-Born Ohio Lawmaker Pushes 'Sensitive Locations' Bill to Limit ICE Enforcement
TrumpRx Triggers TDS in Elizabeth Warren
Texas Democrat Goes Viral After Pitting Whites Against Minorities
U.S. Secret Service Seized 3 Card Skimmers in Alabama, Stopping $3.1M in Fraud
Jasmine Crockett Finally Added Some Policy to Her Website and It Was a...
No Sanctuary in the Sanctuary
Chromosomes Matter — and Women’s Sports Prove It
The Economy Will Decide Congress — If Republicans Actually Talk About It
Tipsheet

Upcoming SCOTUS Case: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (First Amendment)

Guest post from Ken Klukowski

Getting ready for SCOTUS tomorrow.

Not much to report from the Court today. Decisions came down in two cases, both important but not particularly newsworthy. Court heard argument in employment discrimination case against Chicago. Lawyer for Chicago was Benna Ruth Solomon, who is the counsel of record for Chicago on the Chicago gun ban case McDonald v. Chicago that SCOTUS will hear next Tuesday. (I’ll be attending argument, and will report afterward.)
Advertisement


But tomorrow there will be a big case: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. At issue is a group advocating the use of international law and nonviolent measures to settle conflicts. But under federal law, if they communicate with a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, such discussions can be prosecuted as a felony for giving “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” or “service” to terrorists. The question before the Court is whether that federal law, which is part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, is too vague to be constitutional because it’s unclear how broad the law goes, and could infringe on First Amendment free speech rights.

Should be interesting. I’ll be at oral arguments for it in the morning. Also possible that some decisions in pending cases will come down tomorrow as well.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement