In Effect

HRes 246 is a non-binding resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights. The resolution mischaracterizes grassroots efforts seeking justice for Palestinians as anti-peace and accuses the BDS movement of promoting “collective guilt, mass punishment, and group isolation”—charges that international accountability bodies have made against Israel for its actual treatment of Palestinians. The United Nations and the ICRC have found that Israel’s 12-year blockade of Gaza constitutes “collective punishment,” and a 2019 U.N. investigation concluded that Israeli forces had killed or gravely injured hundreds of Palestinian civilian protestors, including children, in besieged Gaza during the Great March of Return despite the fact that they posed no imminent threat. Though it does not bear the force of law, the resolution’s language is a broad condemnation of individuals who boycott for human rights, raising concerns that it will reinforce and legitimize other legislative attacks on protected speech, including anti-boycott laws. Related legislation: SRes 120.

This antisemitism redefinition executive order was signed by Donald Trump on December 11, 2019. The order directs government agencies charged with enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, including the Department of Education, to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism designed to censor advocacy for Palestinian rights. Attempts to pass similar legislation in Congress have failed to date (S 852, HR 4009 (2019), S 2940, HR 5924, S 10, HR 6421) following criticism from activists and civil liberties groups over the legislation’s clear encroachment on political speech.

The order incorporates the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and its problematic contemporary examples, which falsely conflate political criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Past efforts to deploy the redefinition to silence advocacy for Palestinian rights leave little doubt that the order will be used to justify federal investigations into Palestine activism on campuses while adding no new legal protections for Jewish or other students affected by a resurgence of violent white nationalist antisemitism and racism. Since the order was signed, there has been an uptick in federal complaints and investigations against campus Palestine advocacy.

This non-binding senate resolution rejects boycotts for Palestinian rights, specifically focusing on university campuses and academic boycotts. It affirms support for Israel and opposes “efforts to assault the legitimacy of Israel as the sovereign homeland of the Jewish people.”

EO 261 is an anti-boycott executive order that prohibits state contracts with business entities that boycott Israel and allows state agencies to terminate a contract with a business entity that boycotts Israel during the term of the contract.

AB 553 is an anti-boycott law that prohibits state contracts valued at $100,000 or more with companies, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel or territories it occupies. Contractors must provide written certification that they are not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in such boycotts. It also prohibits state agencies or local governmental units from boycotting Israel, a provision aimed at discouraging divestment campaigns at public universities. The legislation codifies and narrows the governor’s 2017 executive order (EO 261). Related legislation: SB 450.

HJ 177 is non-binding resolution that condemns boycotts for Palestinian rights. The resolution expresses the sense of the Virginia General Assembly in opposing academic, cultural, and economic boycotts and “all efforts to assault the legitimacy of the State of Israel as the sovereign homeland of the Jewish people.”

HR 5 is a non-binding resolution that opposes BDS and encourages trade with Israel. The resolution falsely claims that boycotts for Palestinian rights discriminate against Israel on the basis of national origin. 

This anti-boycott executive order creates a blacklist of institutions and companies that engage in political boycotts of Israel or persons doing business in Israel and prohibits state investment in blacklisted entities. Blacklisted entities can request removal from the list by providing written evidence that they are no longer engaged in prohibited boycotts. Governor Cuomo adopted the order following the failure of several legislative efforts targeting boycotts for Palestinian rights.

This anti-boycott law prohibits state contracts with entities that apply political boycotts in a discriminatory manner. Contractors bidding on or renewing contracts of $100,000 or more must provide written certification that they are in compliance with pre-existing California anti-discrimination laws and that any policy they have against a sovereign nation or peoples, “including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel,” is not used to discriminate in violation of those anti-discrimination laws. Boycotts for Palestinian rights based on an entity’s complicity in Israel’s violations do not discriminate against a protected class and thus fall outside the scope of the bill. However, the lawmakers who put forward these bills have stated their intent to exclude individuals and companies engaged in boycotts for Palestinian rights from state contracts. 

Since it was first introduced, AB 2844 was rewritten several times. Called the “California Combating the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israel Act of 2016,” earlier versions of AB 2844 blacklisted and prohibited state contracts with companies participating in a boycott of Israel. The bill was whittled down following pressure from grassroots activists and after civil rights groups raised concerns that it unconstitutionally punished political speech.

HB 793 amends Texas’ 2017 anti-boycott law (HB 89) to exclude sole proprietors, companies with fewer than 10 employees, and contracts worth less than $100,000 from the prohibition on state contracts with companies that boycott Israel or persons or entities doing business in Israel or territories it occupies. A federal court blocked enforcement of HB 89 in April 2019, finding that the law would likely violate the First Amendment. These amendments, which are designed to remove the plaintiffs challenging the law from its reach, may reduce the number of individuals affected by the law, but fail to resolve the underlying constitutional issues.  

The amended law leaves in place the written certification requirement for state contractors as well as the creation of a blacklist of companies in which state retirement plans are prohibited from investing. Related Bill: SB 491.