High Court Asked To Stop Arkansas Law Against Israel Boycott

10

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Free-speech advocates asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that upheld an Arkansas law requiring state contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel.

Join our WhatsApp group

Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


Contractors that don’t sign the pledge must reduce their fees by 20%. Republican legislators who drafted the 2017 law have said it was not prompted by a specific incident in the state.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of the Arkansas Times, a Little Rock-based alternative weekly newspaper.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June that the law does not unconstitutionally infringe on free-speech rights. The full St. Louis-based court’s decision overturned a three-judge panel’s ruling last year that the law violated contractors’ free-speech rights.

In its plea for the Supreme Court to take up the case, the ACLU called the 8th Circuit Court’s ruling a “radical departure” from a Supreme Court precedent that an NAACP boycott of a Port Gibson, Mississippi, hardware retailer was constitutionally protected speech, expression and assembly.

The high court “has long stood for the principle that states cannot suppress politically motivated consumer boycotts,” the ACLU said. It said the 8th Circuit Court ruled that only speech and associations surrounding a boycott were protected, not a boycott itself.

The ACLU also asserted that the 8th Circuit decision was inconsistent with rulings by other federal appeals courts, creating judicial uncertainty.

It also argued that the ruling “gives states a blank check to selectively penalize boycotts that express disfavored messages, as Arkansas did here, and thereby conflicts with the First Amendment’s requirement of content neutrality.”

The law followed similar restrictions enacted by other states in response to a movement promoting boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israeli institutions and businesses over the country’s treatment of Palestinians. Israeli officials say the campaign masks a deeper goal of delegitimizing and even destroying the country.

Similar measures in Arizona, Kansas and Texas that were blocked by the courts were later allowed to be enforced after lawmakers narrowed the requirement to apply only to larger contracts. The Arkansas law applies to contracts worth $1,000 or more.

Citing its anti-boycott law, Arizona last year sold off millions of dollars in Unilever bonds over subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s decision to stop selling its ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories.

Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


Connect with VINnews

Join our WhatsApp group

10 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Not Surprised
Not Surprised
3 years ago

Law and justice are mutually exclusive; what about the bakery in Colorado that refused a request to celebrate gay marriage?

georgeg
georgeg
3 years ago

I just looked up the wording. The wording states: “… agrees for the duration of the contract not to engage in, a boycott of Israel.” The way I see it, the boycott (among other problems) raises a question of how a boycott might affect the quality of product that the contractor will supply. As example, if Israel sells a superior “widget” but the contractor will refuse to supply this superior “widget” and replaces it with an inferior “widget”.

Paul Near Philadelphia
Paul Near Philadelphia
3 years ago

People are allowed to spend their money as they like.