Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to ‘unconstitutional’ Arkansas anti-BDS law
In a move decried by one critic as a “significant loss for the First Amendment,” the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a challenge to an Arkansas law requiring companies doing business with the state to sign a pledge vowing not to boycott Israel.
The justices will not hear an appeal to a June 2022Ā decisionĀ by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involvingĀ Act 710 of 2017, an Arkansas law imposing a 20% penalty on state contractors with contracts over $1,000 if they refuse an oath not to support the nonviolent international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israeli crimes in Palestine includingĀ occupation,Ā settler colonization,Ā ethnic cleansing, andĀ apartheid.
The ACLU petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case,Ā Arkansas Times LP v. Mark Waldrip, on behalf ofĀ Arkansas Times editor Alan Leveritt, who was informed by officials at the University of Arkansas-Pulaski Technical College that the weekly alternative paper would have to sign the anti-BDS pledge if it wanted to keep its advertising contract with the state school. The publication does not boycott Israel, but refused to sign the oath
In 2021, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit CourtĀ ruledĀ that “supporting or promoting boycotts of Israel is constitutionally protected,” however the court later reversed the ruling in a decision written by Judge Jonathan Kobes, an appointee of former President Donald Trump who the American Bar AssociationĀ deemedĀ “not qualified” to serve.
While pro-Israel groups and individuals hailed the high court’s punt as a major blow to BDS, journalism, free speech, and Palestine advocates decried the move.
“We are obviously disappointed at the news today from the U.S. Supreme Court. Permitting state governments to withhold state contracts from citizens who voice opinions contrary to those held by a majority of their state legislators is abhorrent and a violation of the Bill of Rights,”Ā wroteĀ Leveritt.
“In our case the Arkansas state Legislature required our magazine to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel if we wanted to receive state advertising,” the editor continued. “We refused. We are not boycotting Israel but neither do we sign political pledges in return for advertising. Especially state advertising.”
“Thanks to support from our readers, we will not be signing any pledges dictated by our Legislature,” Leveritt added. “The Supreme Court can ignore our First Amendment rights but we will continue to vigorously exercise them.”
U.S. Rep.Ā Rashida Tlaib(D-Mich.)āthe first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congressācalled the high court’s decision not to hear the case a “travesty.”
The Freedom of the Press FoundationĀ tweetedĀ that “SCOTUS should’ve stood up for the First Amendment. Instead, it let a ruling stand permitting the government to withhold ads from newspapers that won’t pledge to not boycott Israel. Government should not financially pressure the press (or anyone) to echo its views.”
Some critics warned that allowing anti-BDS laws to standāeffectively upholding themāwill adversely affect Americans’ right to voice dissent on a wide range of issues.
While federal courts inĀ Arizona,Ā Georgia,Ā Kansas, andĀ TexasĀ have ruled that laws banning or penalizing boycotts of Israel are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, each of those states subsequently amended their respective legislation to apply only to larger contractors and exclude individuals.
According to aĀ databaseĀ compiled by Lara Friedman at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, at least 34 U.S. states have passed laws targeting boycotts of Israel or its illegal Jewish-only settler colonies in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Originally published at Commondreams.org.