WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that forbids providing training and advice to terrorist organizations even about entirely peaceful and legal activities, saying it does not violate the free-speech rights of those who want to help.
The court ruled 6-3 that Congress and the executive branch had legitimate reasons for barring “material support” to foreign organizations deemed to be terrorists.
Those challenging the law “simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “That judgment, however, is entitled to significant weight, and we have persuasive evidence before us to sustain it.”
He was joined by the court’s conservatives — Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — as well as its most liberal member, re tiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, saying the court had abandoned its role of protecting individual liberties under the First Amendment because of security threats Congress did not adequately justify.
“In such cases, our decisions must reflect the Constitution’s grant of foreign affairs and defense powers to the president and to Congress but without denying our own special judicial obligation to protect the constitutional rights of individuals,” Breyer said.
“That means that national security does not always win.”
He was joined in the dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
The Obama administration said the law has been used about 150 times since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Other high court action
• Breast cancer: The Supreme Court decided to allow a new trial for a woman who got breast cancer after undergoing hormone-replacement therapy and is seeking punitive damages against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.
• Arbitration pacts: The court made it harder for people to challenge arbitration agreements in court. The court, in a 5-4 vote, decided that arbitrators are the only ones who can decide whether an arbitration agreement as a whole is “unconscionable” if the contract explicitly delegates that issue to the arbitrator and a person fails to challenge that specific clause.
• Mentally ill: Justices announced they will decide whether Virginia’s advocate for the mentally ill can force state officials to provide records relating to deaths and injuries at state mental health facilities.
