The Humanitarian case might determine the breadth and scope of power the American government may exercise when it wants to control speech. Amazingly, the case and its complex issues aren't front page news everywhere. Below are some off-the-cuff comments I made after I read the transcript:
The pro-free-speech lawyer, Cole, didn't do a great job. There was some drama: Scalia verbally smacked Sotomayor when she raised a misguided example, but Breyer played the good knight and saved her. Justice "That's Not True" Alito looked out of his range intellectually. None of the lawyers were able to really answer Ginsburg's very relevant questions. Breyer, as usual, asked the most interesting and intelligent questions. Scalia clearly wants to kick the ball down the road and uphold the statute. Unfortunately, it appears Kennedy, the swing vote, might be leaning towards Scalia's angle due to the unusual fact pattern involved, i.e., the government did not actually convict anyone for exercise of free speech (the case involves an action for declaratory relief, not an actual prosecution or conviction). Surprisingly, Roberts looked like he hadn't yet made up his mind, though towards the end, he seemed to be leaning towards Constitutional avoidance. Unsurprisingly, Thomas never asked a question.
Actually, come to think of it, neither lawyer did well. The government's lawyer, Kagan, started off very well, but self-destructed at the end, when she suggested the government could prosecute lawyers who submit briefs on behalf of Congressionally-labeled terrorist organizations, even if the briefs relate to tsunami relief or U.N. aid requests. She should have thought harder about her audience. She's talking to a bunch of former lawyers who used to write briefs and in-house advisory opinions for sometimes-not-so-wonderful
After I emailed the transcript to an acquaintance, I sent him more detailed comments:
The fact that the Justices spent most of their time discussing hypotheticals indicates that no one really knows what kind of conduct is prohibited. If the Justices can't figure out what is covered, then how is an ordinary American supposed to comply with the law? As for Scalia trying to kick the ball down the road, isn't the whole point of a request for declaratory relief precisely to avoid kicking the ball down the road and having to deal with a prosecution?
What really bothers me is that no one answered Justice Ginsburg's perfectly valid questions. For example, everyone agrees that membership isn't proscribed, but then what? Are we supposed to just show up to a meeting and sit there to ensure we comply with the statute? Kagan seems to say anything beyond being an inactive paper member of an organization could be proscribed conduct, and it's up to the prosecutors to determine the scope of the law. Sorry, but I'd rather have a clear line than a line drawn by the Supreme Court than thousands of politically ambitious D.A.s deciding what constitutes inactive, legal membership in their own discrete jurisdictions.
Also, I am a member of numerous legal organizations. I've attended annual meetings, communicated with board members, dispensed legal advice to schools they operate, posted on their blogs, etc. For all I know, one of these organizations might have rogue members plotting against the government. If the Court doesn't narrow the law and require a specific intent provision, then I could potentially be prosecuted merely by being an active member of the overall group, despite lacking any malicious intent. Thus, Kagan's argument boils down to this: trust the government, because we won't prosecute someone who isn't really a terrorist. I'm sorry, but if you're a Muslim in 2010, a Japanese-American in 1942, an African-American with Black Panther friends in 1965, etc, it's a little harder to trust prosecutorial discretion.
Practically speaking, if the conservative Justices have their way, any lawyer with Muslim clients or Islamic non-profit clients must consider dropping all of them as clients. After all, who knows? If one person within an organization is supporting terrorism, then the entire organization becomes suspect, and anyone who has helped the organization, even in good faith, can be held liable for material support. Just my two cents.