The Supreme Court heard arguments today (Feb. 23) in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, a case challenging the constitutionality of the definition of material support. Human rights and humanitarian aid charities say the law is so broad that it squelches their speech and advocacy work. The definition of material support includes services, training, expert advice, and could criminalize their work even when they have peaceful goals.

The justices agreed to take up the case after the Ninth Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Humanitarian Law Project. The group wants to provide training in conflict resolution to the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, both classified as terrorist organizations by the U.S.

According to SCOTUSblog, during arguments the justices raised questions about whether a distinction can be drawn among different types of support that individuals provide to terrorist organizations. For more information and background, visit the Charity and Security Network.