Latest Posts

This anti-boycott law prohibits state investment in entities that engage in boycotts of Israel. The law calls for the creation of a blacklist of companies engaged in prohibited boycotts and requires public agencies to divest from blacklisted companies. The bill’s legislative findings target boycott and divestment campaigns, including “environmental, social, or governance campaign[s]” and misrepresent boycotts for justice as based on “discriminatory decision[s] based on geographic or national origin.” 

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill requires the consideration of the problematic IHRA definition, including the contemporary examples, 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,” when investigating discrimination complaints. As a result, political speech supportive of Palestinian rights could be deemed unlawful discrimination in the workplace, in public accommodations, and in educational institutions in Iowa. The bill was withdrawn after a companion bill (HF 2220) was passed.  

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill requires the consideration of the problematic IHRA definition, including the contemporary examples, 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,” when investigating discrimination complaints. As a result, political speech supportive of Palestinian rights could be deemed unlawful discrimination in the workplace, in public accommodations, and in educational institutions in Iowa. The governor signed the bill in March 2022, and it went into effect in July 2022. Related bill: SF 2183. 

This bill, formerly HSB 639, amends Iowa’s 2016 anti-boycott law (HF 2331), and expands the definition of companies subject to the law  to include a “wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of such business or business.”

Iowa’s anti-boycott law requires state entities to create a blacklist of entities 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.  The amendments in HF2373 are specifically aimed at Ben & Jerry’s and in response to the ice cream company’s 2021 announcement that it would stop doing business in illegal Israeli settlements. Ben and Jerry’s and its London-based parent company, Unilever, have come under attack from Israel and its allies who have called for states to use anti-boycott laws to divest from Unilever. The bill was signed by the governor in March 2022 and will go into effect in July 2022.

A companion bill, HF 2373 (formerly HB 639), was signed by the governor in March 2022 and will go into effect in July 2022.

This bill, formerly HSB 639, amends Iowa’s 2016 anti-boycott law (HF 2331), and expands the definition of companies subject to the law  to include a “wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of such business or business.”

Iowa’s anti-boycott law requires state entities to create a blacklist of entities 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.  The amendments in HF 2373 are specifically aimed at Ben & Jerry’s and in response to the ice cream company’s 2021 announcement that it would stop doing business in illegal Israeli settlements. Ben and Jerry’s and its London-based parent company, Unilever, have come under attack from Israel and its allies who have called for states to use anti-boycott laws to divest from Unilever. The bill went into effect in July 2022. Related bill: SF 2265.

This bill amends Ohio’s 2017 anti-boycott law (HB 476), which prohibits state contracts with companies, including sole proprietors, that boycott any jurisdiction with which Ohio can enjoy open trade, including Israel and the territories it occupies. The amendment expands the scope of the law to include state institutions of higher education in the definition of state agencies to which the anti-boycott law applies. In addition, this bill requires state schools to make free expression policies, including the anti-boycott law, available to all students and to create formal processes to adjudicate complaints of free speech violations by university employees. The bill went into effect in July 2022.

HR 6940, titled the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, is an anti-boycott bill that criminalizes participation in boycotts of Israel, singling out international efforts to hold Israel accountable for its illegal settlements. The bill amends the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) of 2018, a successor to the Export Administration Act of 1979 that targeted the Arab League boycott, to prohibit U.S. entities from complying with or supporting boycotts of Israel fostered or imposed by international governmental organizations. This prohibition includes “furnishing information” for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s database of entities contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements. Violations may be punishable by severe fines, up to $300,000 in civil cases and up to $1 million in criminal cases, though the possibility of prison time included in previous iterations has been removed. 

The bill conflates coercive commercial boycotts—like the Arab League boycott where U.S. companies were forced to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with other foreign parties—with constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian rights. 

This bill is identical to HR 5595, which was defeated in 2021. Similar bills failed to pass in the last Congress after multiple revisions (S 720, HR 1697).

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends provisions of the state’s education law to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill requires public schools, universities, and community colleges to treat antisemitic discrimination in the same way as race discrimination, but defines antisemitism to include criticism of Israel, including: “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.”

Originally a bill about the right to a jury trial, 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.

This bill is nearly identical to previous versions, HB 2683 and SB 1143, which failed to pass in 2020 after civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech. The governor signed HB 2675 in April 2022, and it went into effect in September 2022. Related bills: SB 1713.

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.

This bill is nearly identical to previous versions, HB 2683 and SB 1143, which were defeated in 2020. Civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech, and the bill failed to pass. A related bill (HB 2675) passed in April 2022.