The US is poised to use terror laws against students. This could be worse than McCarthyism | Thomas Anthony Durkin and Bernard Harcourt

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced the launch of “Joint Task Force October 7 (JTF 10-7)”. In an accompanying press release, the DoJ said it would bring to justice Hamas leaders who murdered and kidnapped innocent civilians in the deadly attack on Israel of 7 October 2023. Few would quarrel with this ambition. In the same breath, however, the press release claimed that the task force would also “investigate acts of terrorism and civil rights violations by individuals and entities providing support and financing to Hamas, related Iran proxies, and their affiliates, as well as acts of antisemitism by these groups”.

In plain English, this means the student protesters. It could also include universities and colleges that have entered the government’s crosshairs.

The legal risks are real. They are perilous, and they are alarming. Where a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) – such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or related organizations such as the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network – is concerned, the line separating political advocacy from material support to terrorism can be razor thin, and any doubt tends to be resolved against those engaged in the political advocacy.

FTOs are foreign organizations that the Bureau of Counterterrorism in the US state department designates as terrorist entities under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Once such a designation is made, it becomes unlawful for a US person to knowingly provide that group with “material support or resources”. That phrase is defined broadly in the statute as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service”, which can include “expert advice or assistance”. An aggressive interpretation of “service” and “assistance” may easily break down what were seemingly secure boundaries of free speech.

What most people might assume is first amendment-protected speech and advocacy can be misconstrued by the government as assistance or propaganda provided under the direction of an FTO, and thus criminally prosecuted under the material-support-to-terrorism statutes.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. Protected speech is often used to show predisposition, motive or intent in material support prosecutions. Such prosecutions have led to serious federal anti-terrorism convictions that result in lengthy sentences. Typically, sentencing guidelines call for 20 years to life in prison. Actual sentences in double-digit years are not uncommon. Even though this questionable legal strategy has been used before, its use against student protesters would be unprecedented and alarming.

Legal jeopardy for political advocacy has long existed in this country despite its storied embrace of the first amendment. But the justice department’s new task force and threatened antiterrorist prosecutions reach deeper into policing political dissent than anything seen since the McCarthy era. The consequences could be far more draconian than the usual campus risk of a misdemeanor civil-disobedience arrest or student discipline. The threat to the values of free speech and open debate on college campuses could hardly be more consequential.

Already, a number of well-funded US lawyers who aggressively support Israel’s war in Gaza have identified ways to prosecute civil claims against student protesters. On behalf of 7 October 2023 victims, these lawyers have filed federal lawsuits in Virginia, Florida, and Illinois that use the material-support statutes to seek damages against several loosely affiliated student-activist organizations that oppose the war. Like the government’s use of these criminal statutes, the civil cases allege that the US student groups have been acting under the direction of Hamas or its affiliates since 7 October 2023, essentially to disseminate Hamas propaganda.

The incriminating evidence turns on the dissemination of someone else’s ideas, often by making arguments and using expressions, or distributing flyers that can be traced back to an FTO. In the ongoing detention and deportation of former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident, the government accuses him of leading activities “aligned to Hamas” and attending protests at which activists distributed flyers from “the Hamas media office”. More recently, the Department of Homeland Security detained, with the intention to deport, a Georgetown University academic who is an Indian citizen on a visa. The spokesperson for the DHS stated that he was “spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media”. That is precisely how the criminal investigations could proceed: by connecting free speech to propaganda under the direction or control of an FTO.

Right now, the United States is allied with Israel, so the most vulnerable are those students protesting the way the state of Israel is conducting its war in Gaza. But that will not always be the case. As evidenced by Donald Trump’s 180-degree pivot against Ukraine and our closest European allies, the situation could change in a heartbeat.

All social protest movements occur within larger political contexts. That is especially true of the protests surrounding the Israel-Gaza war, which are taking place not only within the context of an actual ground war in Gaza, but also within the context of larger geopolitical forces, including the ongoing “Global War on Terror” declared by George W Bush after September 11.

In that larger War on Terror, strategies and emergency powers that have been developed in the international arena have increasingly been deployed domestically and are now coming home to roost with a vengeance on our campuses. Counterinsurgency strategies with fewer constitutional protections for non-citizens abroad are now being repurposed at home.

College students should not be forced to shrink from their political beliefs and free speech and advocacy for fear of punitive civil actions, let alone the fear of federal grand-jury investigations and the criminal prosecutions threatened by the DoJ task force. Students arrive at universities at a young age when many of them are passionate about human rights and justice – and rightly so. Some universities and colleges pride themselves on a celebrated history of student protest.

It goes without saying that university presidents should be fighting against the assault on the first amendment. But by and large, they have abdicated this responsibility. They must now make it part of their mission to protect students in this new reality. They should not disavow international students who face immigration reprisals, nor take adversarial action against their students to protect only themselves. The least they can do now is work with and counsel their students to help them understand the new threats to their exercise of free speech and enable them to make informed choices and judgments.

• Thomas Anthony Durkin in one of the country’s leading national security lawyers and the Co-Director of the National Security & Civil Liberties Program at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

• Bernard E Harcourt is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and a leading death penalty lawyer. He is the author of The Counterrevolution: How Our Government Went to War Against Its Own Citizens