fbpx
Friday, March 5, 2021

Federal Appeals Court Sends Arkansas Anti-BDS Law to Lower Court

Print This Article

Aaron Bandler is a staff writer for the Jewish Journal, mainly covering anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias. Originally from the Bay Area, his past work experience includes writing for The Daily Wire, The Daily Caller and Townhall.

https://jewishjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/jj_avatar.jpg
Aaron Bandler
Aaron Bandler is a staff writer for the Jewish Journal, mainly covering anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias. Originally from the Bay Area, his past work experience includes writing for The Daily Wire, The Daily Caller and Townhall.

A United States federal appeals court sent Arkansas’ anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) law back to a lower court on February 12.

The case in question stems from 2018, when one of the advertisers for The Arkansas Times, the University of Arkansas-Pulaski Technical College ceased ties with the Times after the paper refused to sign a pledge to not boycott Israel as part of the state law. The Times, which does not currently endorse a boycott of Israel, argued in court that the law violates the First Amendment.

Israel Hayom reported that in a 2-1 decision, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Times, concluding that the law “prohibits the contractor from engaging in boycott activity outside the scope of the contractual relationship ‘on its own time and dime.’ Such a restriction violates the First Amendment.”

Jewish groups criticized the decision.

“The court chose to read the statute as prohibiting the state from contracting with people who are participating in a boycott of Israel even if that participation was wholly unrelated to their state contract,” the American Jewish Committee (AJC) said in a statement. “AJC does not read the Arkansas statute, or BDS statutes in other states, as reaching such unrelated conduct. Rather, the statutes constitutionally reach only boycott participation that does, or is likely to, adversely affect the state’s interest in the contract in question.”

The AJC argued that a drug manufacturer couldn’t refuse to sell medicine to Israel under the law, but allows the manufacturer’s executives to support Israel boycotts on their own time. “Arkansas can easily remedy the flaws in today’s decision both legislatively and administratively by limiting the statute and required contractor compliance certificate accordingly. AJC has already put into motion efforts to facilitate such changes.”

StandWithUs CEO and co-founder Roz Rothstein similarly said in a statement, “StandWithUs is confident that the desire of the state of Arkansas — to refuse to use taxpayer dollars to enter into contracts with companies that discriminate against Israel — will ultimately prevail despite the recent appellate court decision.”

On the other hand, Jack Saltzberg, president and founder of The Israel Group, doesn’t think the court’s ruling is particularly significant. “These anti-BDS laws and resolutions don’t work and, in fact, can be harmful by giving the pro-Israel community a false sense of security. While people unwisely think that a city or state law will help, hundreds of thousands of students are being taught and believe the lies and propaganda of the BDS movement.”

George Mason University Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich argued in a Twitter thread that the ruling was actually a victory against the BDS movement.

“Two judges (incorrectly) read ‘other actions’ as including pure speech, ie verbal support, and struck down those two words,” Kontorovich wrote. “But state anti-BDS laws have always been about refusals to deal, not pro-BDS speech, so the decision upheld much more than it rejected.

“Thus 8th Circuit ruling leaves intact not just the principal part of Arkansas’s anti-BDS law, but also provides a strong precedent for the constitutionality of such laws across the country, which quite clearly target pure business conduct, not merely ‘supporting’ boycotts.”

Holly Dickson, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arkansas, which represented the Times in the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Arkansas politicians had no business penalizing our clients for refusing to participate in this ideological litmus test.”

A spokesperson for Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said in a statement that she is “disappointed” in the decision and is currently exploring options on the matter.

This article was updated on February 19.

Did you enjoy this article?

You'll love our roundtable.

Enjoyed this article?

You'll love our roundtable.

Select list(s) to subscribe to


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Jewish Journal, 3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90010, http://www.jewishjournal.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Culture

Latest Articles
Latest

A Bisl Torah — Planting a Seed

One year ago, I was comparing the plagues of the Passover story to the plague of Covid-19.

Going Steady With the Lord — A poem for Torah Portion Ki Tisa

And now, if I have indeed found favor in Your eyes, pray let me know Your ways Exodus 33:13 Before we buy property together we’d like to know...

Stephen Wise Temple/AJC Webinar Discusses Ethnic Studies

Stephen Wise Temple held a Zoom webinar on the evening of March 3 to discuss California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC).

US Reportedly Renews Investigation of Israeli Spyware Company NSO Group

Probe may be part of larger Biden shift emphasizing human rights, scrutinizing Saudi Arabia

A Moment in Time: This Moment One Year Ago/ This Moment Next Year/ This Moment Right Now

This Moment One Year Ago. This Moment Next Year. This Moment Right Now. Dear all, This photo popped up on my phone on March 2. I took it...

Hollywood

Podcasts

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

x