- September 2010
- IRA Rollover Remains on Hold
- Estate Tax Bill Introduced by Senate
- Campaign-Finance Bill Stalls in Senate, Alleviating Advocacy Groups' Concerns
- Federal Government Awards $50 Million in First Set of Innovations Grants
- Supreme Court Decision Delivers Blow to Human-Rights and Aid Groups
- Supreme Court’s Ruling in College Case Could Impact Charities
- HHS Proposes HIPAA Regulations Changes Affecting Fundraising
- Religion-Based Groups Protest Restrictions in Bill
- Senator Wants More Disclosure by Non Profits about Donors
- Coalition Wants Charity Stipulation in Boston Hospital Deal
- States Seeks to Limit Nonprofit CEO Pay as Part of Budget-Cutting Efforts
- Two NY Charities Refuse to Return Gifts from Donor Convicted of Fraud
- Oregon Wants to Close Vets Charity Over Telemarketing Fees
- Florida Bars Fund Raising by Veterans Group
- NY Governor Signs Law to Limit Charitable Deductions for Wealthy
- Law Suit Claims Mismanagement Killed NY Hospital
- IRS Offers Small Charities ‘One-Time Relief’ Through Extended Deadline
- U.S. Postal Service Proposes Rate Increase
- All Pages
Supreme Court Decision Delivers Blow to Human-Rights and Aid Groups
Human-rights and humanitarian organizations lost a Supreme Court case when the justices upheld a federal law that prohibits U.S. organizations from providing “material support” to designated terrorist groups. Some nonprofit groups had argued the law prevents them from engaging in peace-building work and jeopardizes aid in conflict zones.
The challenge was brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, a nonprofit organization in California that sought to provide training in conflict resolution to the Kurdistan Workers Party, which the U.S. government considers a terrorist group. A 1996 law that was revised under the Patriot Act made it a crime to provide “material support”—including services, training, expert advice, and personnel—to terrorist groups, even if the work has legal and peaceful goals.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected the charity’s argument that the law violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the government’s definition of ‘material support” was not unconstitutionally vague and did not deprive groups of their rights to freedom of speech and association.