One that has individuals in government with a history advocating for private prisons where most undocumented immigrants are housed. 6 weeks probably leads to some solid profits for the bottom line.
Not a lawyer, but reading from the 2010 decision that I think your citing the first line is.
"Material support" is logically defined as more than mere statements of support, and supporters of these groups may advocate for or participate in these organizations.
Specifically it's seems as though an organization was working with terrorist groups to provide training on how to seek non violent solutions with global humanitarian bodies.
Seems like for this to be similar it would require the government to show they individual engaged in direct actions to provide aid to Hamas greater than statements/speech to meet the current definition of "material support".
For statements of support of a terrorist organization to be considered "material support" I think it would require a new ruling from SCOTUS
Do you have a link to their charge? My understanding is the first Columbia student specifically wasn't charged with commiting a crime intentionally, and instead their Green Card was being revoked at the direction of the Secretary of State.
If they aren't being charged with a crime, I don't know how this could be occuring for any other reason than speech.
Solitary is probably a bonus charge.