WASHINGTON -LRB- CNN -RRB- -- The Supreme Court has agreed to review a civil liberties dispute over the government 's power to criminalize `` support '' of a terrorist organization . The Supreme Court will review a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act . The justices on Wednesday accepted review of a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act , and whether it threatens free speech rights of those who would assist non-violent activities of designated groups . Since the September 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks against the United States , federal prosecutors have pursued `` material support '' cases against at least 120 individuals or organizations , winning convictions in about half of those cases . Nearly every such domestic terrorism-related prosecution has included that charge as part of the indictment . At issue is whether the congressional law allows prosecution of those with knowledge of `` any service , training , expert advice or assistance '' to a foreign terrorist organization , as designated by the U.S. government . A federal appeals court in San Francisco , California , struck down several parts of the legislation , finding them too vague to satisfy the Constitution . The government then asked the high court to intervene and uphold the law . Among those charged under the `` material support '' provision : John Walker Lindh , an American Muslim captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan ; the `` Lackawanna Six , '' men from Buffalo , New York , who attended an al Qaeda training camp ; several men in Portland , Oregon , who allegedly sought to travel to Afghanistan to fight on behalf of the Taliban ; a group of young Virginia individuals who allegedly tried to assist a Kashmir terror group ; and James Ujaama , an African-American activist in Seattle , Washington . The key plaintiff in the current appeal is the Humanitarian Law Project , a Los Angeles , California-based non-profit that says its mission is to advocate `` for the peaceful resolution of armed conflicts and for worldwide compliance with humanitarian law and human rights law . '' HLP sought to help the Kurdistan Workers ' Party , a group active in Turkey . Known as PKK , the party was founded in the mid-1970s and has been labeled a terror organization by the United States and the European Union . Its leaders have previously called for militancy to create a separate Kurdish state in parts of Turkey , Iraq , Syria and Iran , where Kurds comprise a population majority . In its appeal to the high court , the government noted that `` since its inception , the organization has waged a violent insurgency that has claimed over 22,000 lives . '' HLP claimed it wanted to advocate on behalf of the PKK before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights , and conduct other advisory sessions and public awareness campaigns . Another plaintiff is an American physician who wanted to help ethnic Tamils in his native Sri Lanka . Much of the island nation is controlled by the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam , which has also fought for decades to carve an independent state . The government claims the Tamil Tigers have `` used suicide bombings and political assassinations in its campaign for independence , killing hundreds of civilians in the process . '' HLP and a group of Tamil doctors say they merely wanted `` to provide their expert medical advice on how to address the shortage of medical facilities and trained physicians '' in the region but `` they are afraid to do so because they fear prosecution for providing material support . '' The Patriot Act was passed six weeks after the 9/11 terrorism attacks . It included amending a previous anti-terror law to strengthen the `` expert advice and assistance '' provision , making it a crime punishable by a 10 - to 15-year prison sentence . The Justice Department calls the material support provision `` a vital part of the nation 's effort to fight international terrorism . '' Officials told the justices the law is constitutional since `` the statute in question regulates conduct , not speech , and does not violate the First Amendment in any of its applications . '' And the government argues lawmakers properly used their authority to address a pressing problem . `` Congress has banned a broad range of material support -- regardless of whether the terrorist group claims to engage in otherwise lawful activities , and regardless of whether the support is ostensibly given to assist those supposedly lawful activities , '' said the administration 's brief . The case is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project -LRB- 08-1498 -RRB- . Oral arguments will be held early next year , with a decision expected by the spring .