International Groups Say Antiterror Ruling by Supreme Court Will Impede Their Work

Many charities that provide overseas humanitarian aid say the Supreme Court’s decision last month to uphold a federal antiterror law prevents them from undertaking efforts to promote peace and jeopardizes their work in conflict zones.

The justices ruled that a law that bars U.S. organizations from providing “material support” to designated terrorist groups is constitutional. Supporters of the decision say the nonprofit groups’ concerns are overblown.

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.

The law at issue 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 its constitutional rights.

Officials of international aid and human-rights groups said the ruling could cause some groups to avoid working in regions where there are terrorist elements, or providing certain kinds of assistance, for fear of being prosecuted or designated as supporters of terrorism by the U.S. government.

Fear of Prosecution

Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrants’ rights and national security at the ACLU of Southern California, sais the decision “will have the effect of decreasing the amount of assistance that’s provided,” said.

While working as a volunteer in Sri Lanka after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunamis, Mr. Arulanantham said he witnessed how concerned aid workers were that they might be seen as aiding the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which the U.S. government considers a terrorist organization.

Former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center, said his group was grappling with just that concern. “The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom,” he said in a statement.

Some antiterror experts said charities were reading too much into the decision.

Matthew Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the decision does not prevent organizations from communicating with terrorist groups, it just prevents them from providing expert training, such as how to petition the United Nations.

Unless groups renounce terrorism, he said, it doesn’t make sense to offer them technical advice because nonprofit officials cannot be sure it will be used for peaceful aims.

Mr. Levitt also said that there are many examples of aid groups working in areas dominated by terrorist groups. The material-support laws may make that work more complicated and more expensive, he said, “but there are ways to do it.”