Publications & Resources
Search TCP documents by typing a keyword (e.g., author, document title, etc.) into the search box and hitting the search button. Refine your results by selecting from the issues, material types, date range, and committee options listed. You can also browse recent publications and resources below.
Browse All Publications & Resources
Case is appeal from conviction of Holy Land Foundation, Muslim charity, under material support statute. Amicus brief by coalition including TCP argues that district court's jury instruction violated due process by allowing a criminal conviction without requiring proof that the defendants knew that their charitable donations would end up in the hands of a designated foreign terrorist group.
Case is appeal from conviction of Holy Land Foundation, Muslim charity, under material support statute. Amicus brief by coalition including TCP argues that district court's jury instruction violated due process by allowing a criminal conviction without requiring proof that the defendants knew that their charitable donations would end up in the hands of a designated foreign terrorist group.
The case challenged overbroad application of federal laws prohibiting "material support" of terrorist groups. Brief by TCP and Rutherford Institute argues it is unconstitutional to apply the material support statutes to punish pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent ends. The brief explained that the challenged provisions conflict with First Amendment protections for free speech and freedom of association.
The case challenged overbroad application of federal laws prohibiting "material support" of terrorist groups. Brief by TCP and Rutherford Institute argues it is unconstitutional to apply the material support statutes to punish pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent ends. The brief explained that the challenged provisions conflict with First Amendment protections for free speech and freedom of association.
Liberty and Security Committee report examines First Amendment and due process concerns created by material support laws. Recommends reforming laws to allow pure speech furthering peaceful ends and to provide due process to groups challenging designations.
The petitioners in this case were convicted of providing 'material support' to the People' s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), a group they claim is a legitimate political opposition group in Iran, but one that the State Department designated as a 'foreign terrorist organization,' without providing the petitioners with an opportunity to challenge that designation. The Constitution Project' s brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to accept review of this case to allow petitioners the opportunity to prove that the PMOI was incorrectly designated as a terrorist organization, and to enable the courts to make this important determination.
