Latest Posts

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires the use of a distorted definition of antisemitism in hate crimes reporting and sentencing. Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights could be used as evidence of a hate crime or result in more severe sentences. 

The bill amends Arizona law to include antisemitism as one of the categories of discrimination for which the state must collect bias crime statistics, but adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its problematic contemporary examples, which include “[a]pplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The bill requires courts to consider criticism of Israel that falls within the IHRA definition as an aggravating factor for sentencing in criminal convictions. Civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech, and the bill failed to pass both houses before the end of the session. Related bill: HB 2683.

This anti-boycott law amends Arizona’s 2016 law (HB 2617) 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 territories occupied by Israel. A federal court blocked enforcement of HB 2617 in September 2018, 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.  

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires state entities to consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its examples related to Israel, in determining whether an alleged act of discrimination “was motivated by discriminatory antisemitic intent.” This distorted definition could encompass almost any criticism of Israel, and its adoption thereby encourages censorship of constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights. Related bills: HF 2303.

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires state entities to consider the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its examples related to Israel, in determining whether an alleged act of discrimination “was motivated by discriminatory antisemitic intent.” This distorted definition could encompass almost any criticism of Israel, and its adoption thereby encourages censorship of constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights. This bill was withdrawn and replaced by the substantially similar bill HF 2504.

This anti-boycott law requires state entities to create a blacklist of “businesses and business entities that are publicly traded and not based in the United States” that boycott Israel and territories it occupies. The law prohibits state entities from investing in or contracting with blacklisted entities for contracts of $1,000 or more. It also requires state funds to divest from blacklisted companies. Blacklisted companies can be removed from the blacklist upon written certification that they no longer boycott Israel. Related bills: SF 2281.

This anti-boycott bill requires state entities to create a blacklist of “businesses and business entities that are publicly traded and not based in the United States” that boycott Israel and territories it occupies. The law prohibits state entities from investing in or contracting with blacklisted entities for contracts of $1,000 or more. It also requires state funds to divest from blacklisted companies. Blacklisted companies can be removed from the blacklist upon written notification that they no longer boycott Israel. SF 2281’s companion bill, HF 2331, was passed into law.

This is a non-binding Senate resolution that condemns BDS, falsely claiming it creates a climate of anti-Jewish hatred. The resolution specifically condemns academic boycotts for Palestinian rights and references Indiana University and Purdue University presidents’ condemnation of academic boycotts for Palestinian rights. 

This is a non-binding House resolution that condemns BDS, falsely claiming it creates a climate of anti-Jewish hatred. The resolution specifically condemns academic boycotts for Palestinian rights and references Indiana University and Purdue University presidents’ condemnation of academic boycotts for Palestinian rights. 

This anti-boycott law requires the Indiana public retirement system board of trustees to create a blacklist of for-profit businesses that engage or acquiesce in efforts to “limit commercial relations with the Jewish state of Israel or businesses that are based in the Jewish state of Israel or territories controlled by the Jewish state of Israel.” The law requires public retirement funds to divest direct holdings from blacklisted companies. The preambular language smears BDS campaigns as damaging to peace and justice, harmful for Palestinian workers, and creating a climate of fear on Indiana’s college campuses.

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends provisions of the state’s Human Rights Act applicable to public schools and universities to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill makes it a civil rights violation for schools to fail to treat antisemitic discrimination in the same way as race discrimination, and defines antisemitism to include criticism of Israel, such as: “Applying a double standard to the State of Israel by requiring behavior of the State of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on the State of Israel.”