Supreme Court to Hear Case on Vague Terminology in Legislation

As an added note to a Wall Street Journal article it was also mentioned that the U.S. Supreme Court also decided recently to hear the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project Case. The brief paragraph describes how the case is centered around the law that criminalizes providing "material support" to a terrorist organization. The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco struck down "some provisions" of the law as too vague. Other portions were upheld.

Upon further research I am finding out that this lawsuit is one of three that have been filed by the group called the Humanitarian Law Project. This group has been active in similar court cases for a least a decade. I think that this more recent suit going to the Supreme Court involves the Patriot Act and the wording that defines "material support" to terrorists and "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists as being too vague. The second mentioned web page gives an interesting history of the case, going from District Court to Circuit Court, then back to District Court, and back to Circuit Court, and finally, both parties have filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S Supreme Court; and the case will be heard. Also, along the way during the time that the Circuit Court was hearing the case, Congress changed the wording on the Statute which caused it to be returned to the District Court.

Although I find the history of this case to be very interesting, it is important to understand that this lawsuit involves the law and enforcement of critical antiterrorist legislation in our society. I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court will hopefully put this issue to rest with a more clear understanding, or we should legislate wording so that we can get on with the defense of our country.
http://online.wjs.com/article/SB125432086519552597.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
http://www.ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project