The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times all had articles this morning reporting the U.S. Supreme Court's upholding a federal law "knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization." [18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1)], rejecting challenges that the measure was so broad as to impinge on U.S. citizens' First Amendment rights of free speech and association. (Text of Opinion )
"Given the sensitive interests in national security and foreign affairs at stake," Chief Justice Roberts was quoted in the New York Times, "the political branches have adequately substantiated their determination that, to serve the government’s interest in preventing terrorism, it was necessary to prohibit providing material support in the form of training, expert advice, personnel, and services to foreign terrorist groups, even if the supporters meant to promote only the groups’ nonviolent ends." He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr..
In dissenting, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in the L.A. Times that "the 1st Amendment should protect these human rights advocates from prosecution, except when it can be shown they knew they were aiding 'unlawful terrorist actions.'" Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined that dissent.