This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether the statute that criminalizes providing aid and assistance to designated foreign terrorist organizations also covers speech.
Background and question before the Court
It is undisputed that the Kurdistan Workers Party engages in a wide range of lawful activities and that plaintiffs seek to support only lawful ends.
According to Justice Kennedy, could the government forbid any NGO or other organization or person from giving tsunami aid to one of these organizations, from giving them money?
What each side argues
Humanitarian Law Project (Petitioner)
According to Humanitarian Law Project, the organization’s activity is core political speech on issues of public concern, advocating only lawful, peaceable activities.
According to Humanitarian Law Project, the group has been engaged in lawful activity and does not wish to risk imprisonment for up to 15 years.
According to Humanitarian Law Project, the organization seeks to teach foreign groups how to advocate for lawful human rights.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. (Petitioner)
According to Attorney General, the statute criminalizes providing aid and assistance to designated organizations; most prohibited aid is not speech, though speech can be included.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Stevens, "But, Mr. Cole, don't you agree that some of the speech could be regulated?"
JUSTICE KENNEDY: "Well, could the government, I assume -- I assume you will say \"yes\" -- could the government forbid any NGO or other organization or person from giving tsunami aid to one of these organizations, from giving them money?"
According to Justice Scalia, "Why isn't that a sufficiently serious reason for the government to do what it's done here?"
JUSTICE SCALIA: "Why do you say Congress clearly did not intend that? You know, I would have guessed that you are providing a service or personnel when you make yourself a member of the organization. Why do you say Congress clearly did not intend it?"
According to Justice Sotomayor, "If O'Brien applies, what remains of your case?"
According to Justice Sotomayor, "That analysis of the activities that you are proposing has not been done by the lower courts, correct?"
- [1] 9dad2e21c8f804fe4382-r1-3ad62dc4846c5523.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 9dad2e21c8f804fe4382-r1-3ad62dc4846c5523.pdf, p. 6
- [3] 9dad2e21c8f804fe4382-r1-3ad62dc4846c5523.pdf, p. 25
- [4] 9dad2e21c8f804fe4382-r1-3ad62dc4846c5523.pdf, p. 41
- [5] 9dad2e21c8f804fe4382-r1-3ad62dc4846c5523.pdf, p. 60
- [6] 9dad2e21c8f804fe4382-r1-3ad62dc4846c5523.pdf, p. 61
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Congress reasoned that helping a foreign terrorist organization’s legal activities also aids its illegal activities.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9dad2e21c8f804fe4382-r1-3ad62dc4846c5523.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.