Fabled Sky Research

Innovating Excellence, Transforming Futures

The Price of Protest: How U.S. Anti-BDS Laws Penalize Contractors for Boycotting Israel

Across 38 U.S. states, anti-BDS laws require contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel, raising urgent First Amendment concerns. These laws force businesses, teachers, and nonprofits to choose between public contracts and their political conscience, setting a dangerous precedent for free speech, government overreach, and democratic integrity nationwide.

In 2018, Bahia Amawi, a speech pathologist who had worked with autistic children in Texas schools for nine years, received a routine contract renewal. But this time, there was something new: a clause requiring her to certify that she did not and would not boycott Israel. As a Palestinian American who boycotts Israeli products as a matter of personal conscience, Amawi refused to sign. She lost her job.

Amawi’s story is not unique. Across the United States, 38 states have enacted laws requiring government contractors—from teachers to construction companies—to pledge they will not participate in boycotts of Israel. These anti-BDS laws, targeting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, represent a profound shift in how American governments regulate political expression.

This is not a fringe or symbolic issue. It directly affects fundamental questions about free speech, protest rights, and government accountability. When a state can dictate which foreign governments its citizens must do business with, we must ask: Can a government compel political silence as a condition of doing business?

What Are Anti-BDS Laws?

To understand these laws, we must first understand their target. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement emerged from a 2005 call by Palestinian civil society organizations. Modeled after the international campaign against South African apartheid, BDS seeks to pressure Israel through economic means to end its occupation of Palestinian territories, ensure equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return.

The movement has gained support from labor unions, student groups, churches, and human rights organizations worldwide. Some see it as a nonviolent tool for justice; others view it as an attack on Israel’s legitimacy. Regardless of one’s position on BDS itself, the American response has been unprecedented.

Beginning in 2015, U.S. states started passing legislation specifically targeting BDS participation. These laws typically work in one of two ways:

Contractor certification requirements: Businesses and individuals seeking state contracts must sign pledges stating they do not and will not boycott Israel or Israeli businesses.
Investment restrictions: State pension funds and investment boards are prohibited from investing in companies that boycott Israel.

The scope is sweeping. These requirements apply to contracts with state agencies, public schools, universities, cities, and other government entities. A freelance journalist writing for a state university publication, a construction company paving roads, or a nonprofit providing disaster relief—all must pledge their position on Israeli politics to qualify for public funds.

The language varies by state, but the intent is clear. Kansas’s law, for example, required contractors to certify they were “not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel” and would “not engage in a boycott of Israel” during the contract term. Texas went further, defining “boycott” to include any action “intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations” with Israel or territories under Israeli control.

The Legal and Ethical Questions

These laws immediately raised constitutional red flags. The First Amendment protects not just speech but also expressive conduct, including economic boycotts. The Supreme Court established this principle definitively in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), ruling that peaceful boycotts to bring about political, social, and economic change are a form of protected expression.

“The right of the people to assemble peaceably and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” extends to collective economic action. The Court found that even when boycotts cause economic harm, they remain protected when used to convey a political message.

Federal courts have repeatedly applied this precedent to anti-BDS laws. In Koontz v. Watson, a federal judge struck down Kansas’s law, writing that the state “may not condition a contractor’s ability to obtain government contracts on their protected First Amendment rights.” The court found it “easy to conclude” that the law violated constitutional protections.

Similarly, in Amawi v. Pflugerville, multiple Texas contractors—including the speech pathologist mentioned earlier—successfully challenged the state’s anti-boycott requirement. The court ruled that Texas could not force citizens to choose between their livelihoods and their First Amendment rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been particularly vocal in opposing these laws. As ACLU attorney Brian Hauss explained, “The government cannot condition contracts on the requirement that businesses take a particular political position. This principle applies whether the government is trying to penalize those who boycott Israel, or those who support Israel.”

Legal scholars across the political spectrum have echoed these concerns. Even those who oppose BDS on policy grounds recognize the dangerous precedent. Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor who has advised states on drafting anti-BDS legislation, acknowledges the laws push constitutional boundaries. Meanwhile, critics argue they clearly cross the line.

Not all challenges have succeeded. In Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Arkansas’s anti-BDS law, distinguishing between boycotts (protected) and refusals to deal (potentially regulable commercial conduct). The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving a circuit split that may eventually require resolution.

The Origins: How Anti-BDS Laws Came to Be

Understanding why anti-BDS laws emerged requires examining the complex interplay of grassroots activism, lobbying efforts, model legislation, and genuine concerns about antisemitism that coalesced in American state capitals beginning in 2015.

The story begins with the BDS movement’s growing visibility on American college campuses in the early 2010s. Student governments at universities like UC Berkeley, Stanford, and the University of Michigan began passing divestment resolutions. While largely symbolic, these votes generated significant media attention and alarm among pro-Israel organizations who viewed BDS as an existential threat to Israel’s legitimacy.

The first anti-BDS legislation emerged in 2015, not coincidentally following the BDS movement’s most visible victories. South Carolina became the first state to pass such a law in June 2015, followed quickly by Illinois. The rapid spread wasn’t organic—it followed a coordinated strategy involving several key players.

Model Legislation and Coordination

Two organizations played pivotal roles in drafting and promoting anti-BDS laws: the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Israel Allies Foundation. ALEC, known for creating model conservative legislation on various issues, developed template anti-BDS bills that could be easily adapted by different states. The Israel Allies Foundation, working through its American arm, organized conferences bringing together state legislators and pro-Israel advocates to coordinate strategy.

The model legislation was sophisticated, learning from early legal challenges. Initial versions were broad, but later iterations included carve-outs for individuals and small contracts, attempting to survive constitutional scrutiny while maintaining the core prohibition on boycotts.

Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor who advised states on drafting these laws, explained the strategy: make the laws narrow enough to avoid First Amendment challenges while broad enough to deter BDS participation. This delicate balance resulted in the patchwork of laws we see today, with states taking different approaches based on their political climates and constitutional concerns.

The Role of Pro-Israel Organizations

Major pro-Israel organizations mobilized unprecedented resources to promote anti-BDS legislation. Groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Christians United for Israel (CUFI), and the Jewish Federations of North America made anti-BDS laws a top priority.

These organizations employed multiple strategies:

Direct lobbying of state legislators, often flying them to Israel on educational trips
Grassroots mobilization of supporters to contact their representatives
Media campaigns framing BDS as antisemitic and anti-peace
Coalition building with Christian evangelical groups, who became crucial allies

The effectiveness of this campaign cannot be overstated. In many states, anti-BDS bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, often with little public debate or media coverage. Legislators reported receiving more constituent contacts about BDS than almost any other issue, despite polls showing most Americans had never heard of the movement.

Genuine Concerns About Antisemitism

While critics focus on the free speech implications, supporters of anti-BDS laws were motivated by sincere concerns. Many Jewish Americans viewed BDS as the latest iteration of historical boycotts targeting Jews, from medieval economic restrictions to Nazi-era boycotts of Jewish businesses.

The BDS movement’s rhetoric sometimes blurred lines between criticism of Israeli policies and delegitimization of Israel’s existence. When BDS supporters chanted “from the river to the sea,” many Jews heard an eliminationist threat. When academic associations voted to boycott Israeli universities, including those with peace programs bringing together Israelis and Palestinians, it reinforced perceptions that BDS sought Israel’s destruction rather than policy change.

State legislators, many with limited knowledge of Middle Eastern politics, relied on trusted community leaders who presented BDS as an antisemitic movement hiding behind human rights language. In this context, anti-BDS laws seemed like a reasonable response to protect Jewish citizens from discrimination.

The Political Context

The timing of anti-BDS laws also reflected broader political trends. The Republican Party was solidifying its position as the “pro-Israel party,” with evangelical Christians—who support Israel for theological reasons—as a core constituency. Supporting anti-BDS legislation became a way for Republican legislators to demonstrate their pro-Israel credentials.

Democrats faced a more complex calculation. While the party’s establishment remained strongly pro-Israel, its base was becoming more sympathetic to Palestinian rights. Many Democratic legislators supported anti-BDS laws to maintain traditional Jewish support while avoiding alienating progressive activists. This political triangulation explains why anti-BDS laws often passed with bipartisan support despite growing Democratic grassroots opposition.

Economic Arguments

Proponents also made economic arguments for anti-BDS laws. They argued that states had legitimate interests in not subsidizing discrimination through public contracts. If BDS targeted Israeli companies based on national origin, states could refuse to contract with BDS supporters just as they might refuse to contract with companies that discriminate based on race or religion.

This argument resonated with legislators who saw parallels to anti-apartheid boycotts. If states could divest from South Africa, why couldn’t they refuse to invest in companies boycotting Israel? Critics responded that the parallel was flawed—anti-apartheid divestment was government action, while anti-BDS laws restricted private citizens’ choices.

The Rapid Spread

Once the template was established and early laws survived initial legal challenges, the floodgates opened. Between 2015 and 2019, over 30 states passed some form of anti-BDS legislation. The speed reflected several factors:

Low political cost: With little organized opposition initially, legislators saw anti-BDS laws as an easy way to please pro-Israel constituents
Model legislation: Pre-written bills made passage simple
Lobbying resources: Pro-Israel organizations could focus resources state by state
Media narrative: Local media often uncritically repeated talking points about fighting antisemitism

The laws’ passage often followed a predictable pattern. A bill would be introduced with little fanfare, receive committee hearings dominated by pro-Israel witnesses, and pass with minimal debate. Only when implementation began and contractors faced consequences did opposition materialize.

Federal Encouragement

While anti-BDS laws emerged at the state level, federal officials provided crucial encouragement. Governors and state legislators could point to bipartisan congressional resolutions condemning BDS and federal officials’ statements supporting state anti-BDS efforts. This federal backing provided political cover and legitimacy for state actions.

The Trump administration particularly embraced anti-BDS efforts, with officials explicitly encouraging states to pass such laws. This federal support emboldened states to maintain their laws even in the face of legal challenges.

Understanding the Complexity

The emergence of anti-BDS laws cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of lobbying success or antisemitism concerns. It reflected a complex interaction of:

Genuine fears about rising antisemitism
Sophisticated political organizing
Model legislation that could be easily replicated
Broader political trends regarding Israel
Limited public awareness or debate
Economic arguments about discrimination
Federal encouragement and legitimation

This complexity helps explain why laws that seem clearly unconstitutional to civil libertarians seemed obviously necessary to many legislators. It also explains why the debate remains so contentious—different actors were motivated by fundamentally different concerns, from protecting free speech to protecting Jewish students from discrimination.

Understanding these origins doesn’t resolve the constitutional questions, but it does illuminate why so many states so quickly adopted laws that would generate such controversy. The anti-BDS movement succeeded not through conspiracy but through effective organizing, genuine convictions, and political circumstances that made opposition initially minimal. Only when the laws’ impact became clear did the backlash begin, setting up the ongoing legal and political battles that continue today.

The Real-World Impact

Behind the legal battles are real people whose lives and livelihoods have been disrupted. Their stories illustrate how abstract constitutional principles translate into concrete harm.

Mikkel Jordahl, an attorney who contracts with Arizona counties to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals, had to choose between his clients and his conscience. As someone who boycotts Israeli products for political reasons, he couldn’t sign Arizona’s anti-boycott certification. He continued his work while challenging the law in court, but the uncertainty affected his practice and his ability to serve vulnerable populations.

George Hale, a radio host and journalist in Texas, lost multiple speaking engagements at public universities because he refused to sign the pledge. “I wasn’t asking these universities to boycott Israel,” he explained. “I was just asking to be able to make my own decisions about my own consumer choices.”

A Quaker church in Texas that had provided hurricane relief services found itself unable to continue helping disaster victims because its members’ faith-based commitment to boycotting all military contractors—including some Israeli companies—prevented them from signing the required certification.

These laws disproportionately affect certain communities. Palestinian Americans face an impossible choice between their heritage and their careers. Many Muslim Americans who boycott Israeli products for religious or political reasons find themselves excluded from public contracts. Progressive Jewish Americans who support Palestinian rights through BDS also face professional consequences for their political beliefs.

The vague language in many laws compounds the problem. What constitutes a “boycott”? If a contractor simply doesn’t happen to buy Israeli products, must they pledge to start? If they criticize Israeli policies on social media, does that violate their certification? The uncertainty creates a chilling effect that extends beyond actual boycott participants.

Small businesses face particular challenges. Large corporations can navigate complex compliance requirements, but sole proprietors and small companies often can’t afford the legal consultation needed to understand their obligations. Many simply avoid public contracts altogether rather than risk inadvertent violations.

What Does This Mean for Democracy?

The implications extend far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These laws establish a troubling precedent: governments can impose ideological litmus tests on citizens seeking to do business with the state.

Consider the slippery slope. If states can require contractors to support Israel’s economy, what prevents them from mandating other political positions? Could a conservative state require contractors to pledge they won’t boycott fossil fuel companies? Could a progressive state demand certification that businesses don’t support certain political candidates? Once we accept that governments can compel political positions through economic leverage, where does it end?

This concern isn’t hypothetical. Some states have already expanded beyond Israel. Texas passed legislation targeting boycotts of fossil fuel companies. Other states have considered bills addressing boycotts of firearms manufacturers. The anti-BDS template is being replicated for other political purposes.

The irony is stark when placed in historical context. Economic boycotts are a fundamental part of American political tradition. The Boston Tea Party was essentially a boycott of British tea. The Montgomery Bus Boycott helped launch the civil rights movement. Americans boycotted South African goods to protest apartheid. Consumer activism—voting with one’s wallet—is as American as apple pie.

Moreover, the U.S. government itself regularly imposes economic sanctions and encourages boycotts of countries whose policies it opposes. Americans are prohibited from most business with Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. The government encouraged boycotts of Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. Yet when citizens make similar choices about Israel based on their own political convictions, states penalize them.

This inconsistency reveals an uncomfortable truth: these laws protect a foreign government from American citizens’ political expression. They privilege one country’s economic interests over Americans’ constitutional rights.

A Growing Backlash

The overreach of anti-BDS laws has sparked a diverse coalition of opposition. While supporters frame these measures as fighting antisemitism and supporting a key ally, critics span the political spectrum.

The ACLU has filed lawsuits in Arizona, Arkansas, Texas, and other states. These challenges have achieved significant victories, with courts striking down or limiting anti-BDS laws based on First Amendment grounds. Even when laws survive judicial review, the litigation costs and public scrutiny have made some states reconsider.

Several states have reformed or repealed their anti-BDS measures. After legal challenges, Kansas, Arizona, and Texas amended their laws to apply only to large contracts, exempting individuals and small businesses. While this reduces the impact, critics argue any ideological test for public contracts remains problematic.

Public campaigns have raised awareness about these laws’ implications. Many Americans who have no position on BDS itself object to government-compelled speech. Newspaper editorial boards, typically cautious about Middle East politics, have condemned anti-BDS laws as unconstitutional overreach.

Notably, opposition includes many Jewish organizations and individuals. Groups like Jewish Voice for Peace obviously oppose the laws, but even mainstream organizations have expressed concerns. The Reform Jewish movement, America’s largest Jewish denomination, has stated that while it opposes BDS, it also opposes legislation that infringes on free speech rights.

Some progressive Zionist groups find themselves in a complex position. They strongly oppose BDS as harmful to Israel but also recognize that government censorship sets a dangerous precedent. This nuanced position—supporting Israel while defending the right to boycott—demonstrates that the issue transcends simple pro-Israel versus pro-Palestine divisions.

Business groups have also raised concerns. While some chambers of commerce supported anti-BDS laws, others worry about the compliance burden and the precedent of government-mandated political positions. They fear a patchwork of state laws requiring various political pledges could make interstate commerce increasingly complex.

What Kind of Nation Does the U.S. Want to Be?

The debate over anti-BDS laws ultimately asks a fundamental question about American democracy: Should government have the power to compel political orthodoxy through economic coercion?

You don’t need to support BDS to support the right to boycott. Many Americans who buy Israeli products, support Israel’s security, and oppose the BDS movement still recognize that forcing citizens to take loyalty oaths crosses a constitutional line. The principle at stake transcends any particular political position.

When we allow governments to punish citizens for refusing to do business with a foreign nation, we must ask: Who exactly are we protecting—and at what cost? These laws protect Israel’s economic interests, but they do so by sacrificing American citizens’ freedom of conscience and expression.

This is not merely a “pro-Israel versus pro-Palestine” issue. It’s a litmus test for democratic integrity. Do we believe in a marketplace of ideas where citizens can express their political views through economic choices? Or do we accept a system where government can mandate political conformity as the price of participation in public life?

The speech pathologist who lost her job, the attorney who couldn’t serve inmates, the journalist who couldn’t speak at universities—their stories remind us that abstract principles have human consequences. When we trade freedom for the comfort of enforced consensus, we all lose something precious.

History will judge this moment. Will we be remembered as the generation that stood firm for constitutional principles even when politically inconvenient? Or as the one that allowed fear and political pressure to erode fundamental rights?

The answer lies not in courtrooms or legislatures alone, but in the choices of citizens who must decide what kind of nation we want to be. In that choice between liberty and compulsion, between free expression and forced silence, we define not just our relationship with Israel or Palestine, but our relationship with democracy itself.

The price of protest, it turns out, is more than individual contractors losing their jobs. It’s a piece of our national soul—the part that once declared certain truths to be self-evident, including the right to speak, associate, and yes, to boycott according to one’s conscience. That price is too high for any democracy to pay.

References

Legal Cases:

News Articles and Reports:

ACLU of Texas. (2019, April 25). Court rules Texas anti-boycott law unconstitutional, protects First Amendment right. ACLU of Texas.
Hauss, B. (2022, October 20). It’s Time to Reaffirm Our First Amendment Right to Boycott. American Civil Liberties Union.
Greenwald, G. (2018, December 17). A Texas elementary school speech pathologist refused to sign a pro-Israel oath, now mandatory in many states — so she lost her job. The Intercept.
Hauss, B. (2019, January 7). Laws suppressing boycotts of Israel don’t prevent discrimination — they violate civil liberties. ACLU.
Weber, A. (2018, December 26). Texas school employee suing over pro‑Israel oath. NPR.
Harnden, T. (2023, November 20). Inside the campaign to get state legislatures to pass pro‑Israel resolutions. The Guardian.
Institute for Palestine Studies. (n.d.). ALEC goes after BDS. Institute for Palestine Studies.
Stanley-Becker, I. (2019, April 26). “God is great”: For the third time, a federal judge blocks an Israel boycott ban on First Amendment grounds. The Washington Post.
Halpern, J., & Ben Dor, L. (2024). Stop boycotting Israel boycotters. Bloomberg Opinion.
McCammon, S. (2018, May 23). Lawsuit challenges laws barring Israel boycott. NPR.
Al Jazeera. (2023, February 21). Top US court refused to review anti-BDS law: Here’s what it means. Al Jazeera.

Government Documents:

Texas Legislative Reference Library. (2017). H.B. 89, 2016 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2017). Texas Legislature.
Kansas Legislative Research Department. (2017). S.B. 134, 2017 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Kan. 2017). Kansas Legislature.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control. (2023). Sanctions programs and country information. U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Academic and Policy Sources: