[3] U.S. v. Al-Hussayen is considered a landmark case for civil liberties, related to provisions of the USA Patriot Act in the United States.
Al-Hussayen accepted a deal, agreeing to deportation if the prosecutor dropped plans to retry him on the outstanding immigration charges.
At an immigration hearing in mid-2003, federal judge Anna Ho ordered Al-Hussayen to be deported to Saudi Arabia, his country of origin.
[6] He was held in federal custody pending a trial on terrorism and immigration charges, and he continued to work on his doctoral program while in jail.
[3] In March 2004, he was charged with conspiracy to provide material support to Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the US, through donation links on Web sites which he allegedly maintained.
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes the federal government to prosecute people if they "provide expert advice or assistance" to terrorist groups.
"[2] In January 2004, the US District Court in Los Angeles, California had ruled in another case that this provision is unconstitutional, as it violates First and Fifth amendment rights.
[8][10] U.S. District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins ruled that the USA Patriot Act's language, barring "expert advice or assistance" to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations, was "overly broad and vague."
"In that case, the judge ruled on behalf of several humanitarian groups that wanted to provide support to the nonviolent arms of two organizations designated as terrorist in Turkey and Sri Lanka.
[2] What became a national debate was centered on one question: "Were Al-Hussayen's Internet activities constitutionally protected free speech or did they cross the line into criminal and material support to terrorism?
[11] After finally being released, al-Kidd sued Attorney General John Ashcroft personally, in a case in which he was represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
In 2009 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that Ashcroft could be sued and held personally responsible for the wrongful detention of al-Kidd.
Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the American University School of Law, considered it a "narrow ruling" and said the court held that "Ashcroft did not, in fact, violate his [al-Kidd's] Fourth Amendment rights.