Advising terrorism – hybrid scrutiny, safe harbors, and freedom of speech

has published new scholarship from Peter Margulies analyzing the
Supreme Court decision in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder (HLP)
upholding a statute that bars “material support” of terrorist
organizations. Some commentators have labeled HLP as heralding a new
McCarthyism. Margulies argues that such critics overlook the tailored
quality of the decision’s hybrid scrutiny model, its roots in the
Framers’ concerns about foreign influence, and its surprising parallels
with constitutional justifications for professional regulation. H/T Georgetown SLB.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: