On Feb. 23, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, a case challenging parts of the USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act). The Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) and other charities allege that sections of the law violate the First Amendment.

Multiple legislative responses have followed the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a decision that permits independent election spending by corporations, including certain nonprofit organizations. Following three rigorous congressional hearings, lawmakers have expressed a sense of urgency and the intent to continue working on legislation to curtail the impacts of the ruling, even as some critics charge that reaction to the decision is inflated.

Vol. 2, Issue 2
Featured articles, blogs and abstracts (click on headline to read full article):
1. Save the Date: Briefing on Feb. 17, 2010 about the Humanitarian Law Project case at the Supreme Court
2. UN Approves Reforms for Listing and Delisting on Terrorist List
3. Legal Roadblocks for US Famine Relief to Somalia Creating Humanitarian Crisis
4. Discussion on Zakat Committees Highlights Problems with Anti-Terror Regime
5. Abstract: Guide to Nongovernmental Organizations for the Military

The long-awaited decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was issued on Jan. 21. With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations and unions may now directly and expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office, as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with campaigns or political parties. Many predict the impacts of the decision will be immense and far-reaching, both for nonprofit voter engagement and political discourse as a whole.