Providing Resources To Terrorist Organizations
Core statutory & constitutional framework (brief)
Statutes
The principal statutes are found in Title 18, primarily:
18 U.S.C. § 2339A — criminalizes providing material support or resources with knowledge or intent that they will be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a federal crime of violence or a state crime of violence.
18 U.S.C. § 2339B — criminalizes knowing provision of material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) designated by the Secretary of State.
18 U.S.C. § 2339C — criminalizes financing of terrorism and related acts.
“Material support or resources” is defined broadly (e.g., training, expert advice or assistance, personnel, financial services, and more).
Key legal tensions
First Amendment: Plaintiffs/defendants argue §2339B/A is overbroad or violates freedom of speech/association when the “support” is political advocacy or humanitarian assistance.
Vagueness / Due Process: Challenges that “material support” is too vague or allows arbitrary enforcement.
Mens rea and nexus: How much knowledge of the recipient’s illicit purpose is required? Must the government prove the defendant intended the material support to further terrorism?
National security vs. civil liberties: Courts balance government counter‑terrorism interests against constitutional protections.
Case 1 — Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) — landmark Supreme Court decision
Facts & context
The Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) and individual plaintiffs sought to provide training and advice (e.g., on peaceful dispute resolution and UN mechanisms) to two foreign organizations that the government had designated as FTOs (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)).
Plaintiffs argued their proposed assistance was lawful, nonviolent, and protected expressive activity.
Legal issue
Does the material‑support statute (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) violate the First Amendment (and other constitutional provisions) as applied to coordinated, nonviolent speech and advocacy targeted to FTOs?
Holding
Yes and no: the Supreme Court upheld §2339B as constitutional. The Court held that the statute’s prohibition on “material support or resources” is lawful even when applied to certain forms of seemingly benign, nonviolent assistance if that assistance is coordinated with and given to a designated FTO.
The Court rejected HLP’s First Amendment challenge, reasoning that coordinated support (even speech in coordination with the organization) can significantly help the FTO’s illicit activities and thus fall outside core First Amendment protections.
The Court acknowledged that pure, independent advocacy (speech that is not coordinated with or directed to an FTO) is protected; but coordinated assistance is not protected.
Significance / doctrine
Humanitarian Law Project is the controlling decision: it strongly curtailed First Amendment defenses in material‑support prosecutions where the assistance is coordinated with a designated FTO.
The decision emphasized Congress’s compelling interest in combating terrorism and the Government’s ability to prevent indirect support that frees violent actors for other tasks.
It left open the possibility that purely independent advocacy could be protected, but it made clear that most assistance coordinated with an FTO is criminally proscribable.
Case 2 — United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) — large federal prosecution (2004–2008)
Facts & context
The Holy Land Foundation (HLF), once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., was accused of funneling funds to Hamas, a designated FTO. The government alleged that HLF’s grants and transfers to zakat committees and charities ultimately benefited Hamas’s infrastructure and operations.
The government’s theory combined documentary evidence, witness testimony, and classified material to show that HLF leaders knowingly provided material support to Hamas.
Key legal developments & trials
HLF leadership and several officials were criminally charged with providing material support to a designated FTO, money laundering, and related crimes.
After a first trial that ended in a mistrial, a second trial in 2008 resulted in convictions of several HLF leaders on numerous counts.
Significance / doctrinal points
The HLF prosecutions exemplify how prosecutors prove a “knowing” transfer of funds that benefits an FTO — by tracing financial flows, using expert testimony on FTO structures, and often using classified or sensitive evidence.
HLF demonstrates the evidentiary challenges and the government’s reliance on circumstantial proof (e.g., internal documents, testimony about relationships between charities and FTO infrastructure).
The prosecutions also illustrate post‑9/11 enforcement intensity and how charitable giving can become criminal when funds are diverted — knowingly or recklessly — to terrorist ends.
Case 3 — United States v. Rahman et al. (the “Blind Sheikh” and World Trade Center conspirators, 1995 series of prosecutions)
Facts & context
Sheikh Omar Abdel‑Rahman and a group of co‑defendants were prosecuted in the mid‑1990s for conspiracy, seditious conspiracy, and other offenses tied to a plot to attack landmarks in New York (including the 1993 WTC attack connections).
Among the charged conspiracies were counts touching on support networks, fundraising and facilitation of terror activity.
Legal significance
Rahman’s prosecution predates the modern §2339B landscape but is historically important because it shows the prosecution of broad networks that provide logistic, ideological, and financial support to violent conspiracies.
It highlights the use of conspiracy and seditious‑conspiracy charges alongside statutes that later became central, and it shows how evidence of fundraising and material assistance can be marshaled as part of a terrorism conspiracy case.
Doctrinal takeaways
Conspiracy law can be a powerful tool where the government shows an agreement to commit violent acts or to support violent actors, even if the defendant did not personally carry out violence.
Early cases like Rahman framed later statutory drafting and enforcement approaches to material support.
Case 4 — United States v. Enaam Arnaout / Benevolence International Foundation (BIF) (early‑2000s prosecutions)
Facts
Enaam Arnaout was head of Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), a charitable NGO that operated internationally. The government alleged BIF diverted charity funds and logistical support to armed groups (notably in Chechnya) and conspirators.
Arnaout was indicted on fraud, racketeering, and material‑support related charges.
Outcome
Arnaout ultimately pleaded guilty (in the early 2000s) to certain charges and cooperated; BIF was shut down and designated. Sentencing accounted for the diversion of charitable funds.
Significance
The Arnaout/BIF matters illustrate the intersection of financial crimes, fraud, and material support charges: prosecutors often use financial statutes (money laundering, RICO, wire fraud) alongside §2339 charges to get at complex financing networks.
They also show prosecutorial focus on NGOs and charities as potential conduits, and the need for careful auditing and tracing to establish that funds were knowingly diverted to violent ends.
Case 5 — United States v. Sami Al‑Arian (high‑profile case related to Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ))
Facts & context
Sami Al‑Arian, an academic in the U.S., was indicted in 2003 on multiple counts alleging he conspired with and provided services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated FTO.
The trial produced mixed verdicts: juries acquitted on several counts, but there were convictions on others. Ultimately, after years of litigation, Al‑Arian entered a plea agreement in 2006 to one count of conspiracy to provide services to PIJ and agreed to deportation.
Legal significance
Al‑Arian’s case illustrates the complexity of proving “knowing” support, the role of testimony and classified evidence, and the lengthy litigation trajectory such prosecutions may have.
It also shows the interplay of trial outcomes, plea bargaining, and immigration consequences that often accompany terrorism prosecutions.
Doctrinal points
Prosecutions against academics or professionals alleged to have ties to extremist groups raise sensitive First Amendment and academic freedom concerns; courts scrutinize whether conduct crosses from protected advocacy into prohibited coordination or material aid.
The case underscores prosecutorial strategies: pursue multiple counts, seek convictions on narrower conspiracy or support charges, and use plea agreements where full trial risk is high.
Case 6 — Prosecutions targeting individuals who fund or recruit — assorted federal cases (representative examples)
Rather than a single case caption, several important lines of prosecutions demonstrate how courts and prosecutors treat different factual patterns:
a. Financing and money‑movement prosecutions
Cases where individuals raised, solicited, or transferred funds overseas and the government traced those funds to designated groups. Courts often admit financial records, bank‑transfer evidence, and testimony about the recipient organization’s terrorist activities.
b. Recruitment and personnel support prosecutions
Cases prosecuting those who recruit or remit personnel (or “volunteers”) to fight with an FTO. Courts treat the recruitment of fighters or provision of personnel as a paradigmatic form of “material support.”
c. Training & expert assistance prosecutions
Following Humanitarian Law Project, courts have upheld convictions where training or technical assistance to FTOs — even if presented as nonviolent — was shown to be coordinated and to further the organization’s overall capabilities.
Doctrinal takeaways across these prosecutions
The government’s proof typically focuses on (1) designation of the recipient as an FTO (under §2339B) or the nexus to violent crime (under §2339A), (2) the defendant’s knowledge that the recipient is an FTO or will use the support for violent ends, and (3) that the support was the kind listed in the statute.
Defendants often assert defenses: pure political speech, lack of knowledge, charitable intent, or that the assistance was purely humanitarian. After Humanitarian Law Project, those defenses have narrow success when the assistance is coordinated.
Doctrinal themes and appellate outcomes
“Coordinated” vs. “Independent” speech
Courts distinguish between independent advocacy (protected) and coordinated assistance (unprotected if given to an FTO). HLP made that distinction central.
Knowledge requirement
For §2339B, the government must prove the defendant “knowingly” provided support to an organization that was designated as an FTO. The level of scienter required for §2339A (nexus to violent crime) is higher; often prosecutors must show that the defendant knew the support would be used in planning or executing violent crimes.
Breadth of “material support”
The statutory definition is broad and includes not only money and weapons but also training, expert advice, and personnel. Courts have sometimes upheld this broad reach; defense arguments constraining it have met limited success post‑HLP.
Use of classified evidence
In national‑security prosecutions, classified intelligence and sensitive law‑enforcement material may be used, often under Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) procedures. This raises disclosure and confrontation issues that surface on appeal.
Conspiracy law as a complement
Prosecutors commonly charge both material‑support offenses and conspiracy, RICO, wire fraud, money laundering, or other statutes to capture the range of illicit activity and to hedge evidentiary risks.
Sentencing
Sentences vary widely; many prosecutions result in significant federal prison terms, particularly when the material support facilitated violent attacks or large funding streams.
Typical defenses and prosecutorial responses
Defenses
First Amendment / independent advocacy: the assistance was pure speech not coordinated with the FTO.
Lack of knowledge: the defendant did not know the recipient was an FTO or that funds would be used for violent acts.
Purely humanitarian purpose: funds were intended for medical/food relief, not for terrorism.
Vagueness: the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied.
Prosecutorial strategies
Emphasize documentary proof of coordination (emails, meeting notes, bank transfers).
Use cooperating witnesses or disclosures tying transfers to FTO operations.
Demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge through communications, public statements, or association with known operatives.
Where humanitarian activity is at issue, show that funds were diverted or received by entities effectively controlled by the FTO.
Policy, criticism, and evolving issues
Civil liberties concerns: Critics argue the material‑support laws can chill legitimate humanitarian aid and political speech. HLP narrowed but did not eliminate that concern.
Designation process and fairness: The FTO designation process and how it interacts with criminal prosecutions raise administrative‑law and due‑process questions.
Digital era: Online fundraising, social media coordination, and remote technical assistance pose new evidentiary and legal challenges that courts are wrestling with (e.g., where does “advice” online end and “material support” begin?).
International law & extraterritoriality: Some prosecutions involve overseas conduct or transfers, raising questions about the reach of U.S. law.
Short summary and practical points for lawyers / students
Material‑support statutes are powerful and broad; the government need not show the defendant personally engaged in violence — providing finance, personnel, training, or even some types of coordinated advocacy can be criminal.
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) is the controlling Supreme Court decision upholding broad application of §2339B against First Amendment challenge when assistance is coordinated with FTOs.
Prosecutions often pair §2339 counts with financial crimes, conspiracy, or RICO, increasing conviction likelihood.
Defendants’ best constitutional arguments are (1) that their activity was independent advocacy (not coordinated), (2) lack of knowledge that the recipient is an FTO or will use the resources for violent ends, or (3) that the statute is vague as applied — but these defenses have limited success after HLP.
Prosecutors must prove knowledge and the prohibited kind of support; therefore evidence of coordination, tracing of funds, and witness testimony are crucial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments