The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.

Sec. 1021(e)

AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism.
Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects "substantially supported" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." The indefinite detention would supposedly last until "the end of hostilities."
In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to "pass constitutional muster" because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.
"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."

But is this a big news story? The renewal of an act that upholds the authority granted in another act that is over 10 years old ...really this is news?

Fox has been using propaganda domestically for years.

The Republican Party is an organization that controls much of the government, which uses Fox as a propaganda outlet. Sorry, guess I needed to be more clear.

If you count "only the House" as "much of the government";

If you count "only the House" as "much of the government"; I suppose that's true

They loosened the language under which the military can detain you indefinitely and yeah, it should be a big news story or at least a little news story. Look around, it's not being covered by anyone.

In essence, the Government argues that as an “affirmation” of the AUMF, § 1021 of the NDAA does nothing new; and therefore, since the type of activities in which plaintiffs are engaged were not subject to legal action under the AUMF, there is no reasonable basis for plaintiffs to assert that § 1021 could suddenly subject them to governmental action now. According to the Government, as an affirmation of the AUMF, the NDAA must be “read against the backdrop of Executive practice and court decisions”--a backdrop which clarifies the scope of § 1021. (See Gov’t’s Supplemental Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. (“Gov’t Supp. Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 33) at 1.)
For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that § 1021 is not merely an “affirmation” of the AUMF. To so hold would be contrary to basic principles of legislative interpretation that require Congressional enactments to be given independent meaning. To find that § 1021 is merely an “affirmation” of the AUMF would require this Court to find that § 1021 is a mere redundancy--that is, that it has no independent meaning and adds absolutely nothing to the Government’s enforcement powers.
In addition to rendering § 1021 meaningless, the Government’s position ignores the differences between the two statutes. Section 1021 lacks what are standard definitional aspects of similar legislation that define scope with specificity. It also lacks the critical component of requiring that one found to be in violation of its provisions must have acted with some amount of scienter--i.e., that an alleged violator’s conduct must have been, in some fashion, “knowing.” Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little--it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass Constitutional muster.

Courthouse News Service:

“The May 16 order found Section 1021(b)(2) constitutionally infirm on two bases: the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,” Forrest wrote. “As set forth below, the law has long provided that this type of finding has provided relief to both the parties pursuing the challenge, as well as third parties not before the Court. ... Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court - or by Congress.”

Quoting the injunction, the judge added: “The May 16 order stated that there is a ‘strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.’” (Emphasis in original.)

Well, yes and no. The Fourth Circuit only covers Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. For all the rest of us, the statute remains unchallenged.