Supreme Court to decide what qualifies as terrorist support for immigrants

A man seeking asylum in the U.S. argues he was forced to provide food to a terrorist organization in Nigeria.(CN) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a case from the Department of Justice that could redefine what counts as support for terrorist organizations when determining whether a migrant is admissible into the United States.Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an immigrant who has given material support to a terrorist organization is removable and ineligible for various immigration benefits.The statute does not define “material support.” Instead, it identifies several examples including “a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological or radiological weapons), explosives or training.”In his petition for review, Attorney General Todd Blanche asks the high court to determine whether such support must advance the organization’s actual commission of terrorism to qualify for that bar.Blanche argues material support may also come in the form of supplying essentials such as food, shelter, bedding and clothes — even if those items cannot be used or readily diverted to carry out terrorist activities.“By its plain terms, the bar against those who provide ‘material support’ does not distinguish between guns and butter,” Blanche wrote.“It applies to all who help a terrorist organization function, not just to those who specifically advance its terrorist activities,” he added.However, in September 2025, the Fourth Circuit held that general support helping a terrorist organization operate day-to-day is too trifling to be “material.” The support must be “sufficiently substantial standing alone to help the terrorist organization accomplish its terrorist activities," the federal appeals court ruled.The decision finds no footing in the statutory text, which prohibits material support both “for the commission of a terrorist activity,” and also “to a terrorist organization,” the DOJ argues.The feds also claim the ruling conflicts with those from three other circuit courts and that if allowed to stand, will impose significant harm on the government’s ability to remove and deny immigration benefits to immigrants with ties to terrorism.The Fourth Circuit found that Izuchukwu Ozurumba did not supply “material support” to a terrorist organization when he cooked thousands of meals for one over the course of several months.“Providing meals to a terrorist organization’s members is no less a material form of support than providing gasoline for its vehicles,” Blanche wrote.But Ozurumba argues he had no choice.Ozurumba said he was lured to a camp outside of Lagos, Nigeria, with the promise of a job offer, but was then held there against his will by a violent, armed group who forced him to prepare meals for them without pay.When Ozurumba finally escaped, he claims the unknown gunmen hunted him across Nigeria and into Venezuela, beating him and threatening to kill him.He fled to the United States and presented himself at the border, requesting asylum. But an immigration judge deemed Ozurumba inadmissible for providing support to a group that qualified as a terrorist organization.He argues the government’s petition rests on a manufactured circuit split, conflating divergent outcomes on different facts with doctrinal conflict.“No federal court has adopted the government’s rule, under which any interaction with a terrorist organization, no matter how attenuated or inconsequential, qualifies as ‘material’ support,” Ozurumba wrote in his brief to the justices.“That reading would drain the statutory term of meaning and extend the inadmissibility bar beyond any principled limit,” he added.The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the grant, nor did counsel representing Ozurumba.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads