Sami Omar Al-Hussayen

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen (born 1973, Saudi Arabia), also known as Sami Al-Hussayen, is a teacher at a technical college in Riyadh. As a Ph.D. graduate student in computer science at the University of Idaho in the United States, he was arrested and charged in 2003 by the United States with running websites as a webmaster that were linked to organizations that support terrorism. Al-Hussayen is one of the few people at the time to have been charged under a provision that has been described as "overly broad and vague."

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. It was the first time that the government tried to use the material support statutes "to prosecute conduct that consisted almost exclusively of operating and maintaining websites."

Idaho's senior U.S. senator and one of its congressmen, both Republicans, had already proposed amendments to the Act because of their concerns about its effects on civil liberties.

The federal government had two cases against him: federal charges related to support of terrorism, and one related to immigration issues. For the terrorism case, he was initially charged with seven counts of visa fraud, and four counts of lying to officials. 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. The trial of Al-Hussayen lasted seven weeks. The defense called only one witness. He was acquitted of all three terrorism charges, which was described as a "stinging defeat" for the government.

He was acquitted of three of the eight immigration charges. As the jurors deadlocked on the remaining charges, District Judge Edward Lodge declared a mistrial for those remaining charges. The remaining immigration charges would have to be retried.

Deportation After his acquittal at the criminal trial, Al-Hussayen was still held in custody by immigration authorities. A few weeks later, he agreed not to appeal his deportation order if the prosecution agreed not to retry him for the remaining immigration charges. He was deported to Saudi Arabia in July 2004. His wife and three sons returned there voluntarily to meet him, rather than await deportation orders.

Al-Hussayen and his family live in Riyadh. He works as an instructor at a technical university, and his wife works as a kindergarten teacher.

Significance of the case The USA Patriot Act of 2001 authorizes the federal government to prosecute people if they "provide expert advice or assistance" to terrorist groups. This question of guidance and association has troubled critics. Among them are two of Idaho's US Congressmen, who had already registered their opposition to provisions of the act: the Republicans Larry E. Craig, the senior U.S. senator, and Representative C. L. Otter, "have sponsored bills to amend the act, which they have called a threat to civil liberties." 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. Judge Collins wrote that 'a woman who buys cookies at a bake sale outside her grocery store to support displaced Kurdish refugees to find new homes could be held liable' if the sale was sponsored by a group designated terrorist." 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). They said that they knew of 70 other Muslim men who had been similarly detained in the early years following the 9/11 attacks. 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.

In June 2011, the US Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision, agreeing unanimously that Ashcroft cannot be personally sued, as he had immunity as a government official, unless he could be proven to have violated law. In addition, a majority ruled that al-Kidd could not have won his case on the merits. 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."