Instead of Ending the Shutdown, Senators Plan to Encourage Punishment of Israel Boycotts
In the middle of a government shutdown, the Senate leadership’s first order of business in the 116th Congress is not legislation to reopen the government.
Instead, and incredibly, the Senate is again trying to slip a measure intended to suppress protected political expression past public scrutiny. The bill is the “,” which would express federal approval of state laws that place restrictions on boycotts of Israel and its settlements, as part of an effort to weaken the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The bill is included in , which the Senate plans to vote on this week. On Monday, the ACLU sent a letter to senators expressing opposition to the bill.
To their credit, Sens. (D-Md.), (D-Md.), and (D-Vt.) have urged the Senate not to consider any bills, other than those that would reopen the government, until the shutdown ends. We agree. The Combatting BDS Act represents yet another covert attempt by the Senate to enact legislation that would burden fundamental free expression rights without proper consideration on the heels of a failed attempt last month to pass a different law criminalizing boycotts of Israel. But moreover, voting on it now, amid a partial government shutdown, would be, as noted, “a fundamental failure to govern.”
The Combating BDS Act would attempt to give legal cover to states that enact laws penalizing businesses and individuals who participate in boycott activities against Israel and Israeli-controlled territories. These state laws, exist in many different forms, generally compel state contractors and any entity in which the state invests — for example, through a state-run pension, retirement, or endowment fund — to sign oaths promising not to boycott Israel as a requirement of maintaining their relationship with the state. However, as courts found in the McCarthy era, the government can’t fire its employees or contractors just because they refuse to sign an oath promising not to engage in disfavored expression or association. And have already held state requirements to swear not to participate in boycotts of Israel be unconstitutional.
While we take no position on Israel boycotts, the BDS movement or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we do maintain that states should not be sanctioning businesses on the basis of First Amendment-protected expression and association. We have consistently — and successfully — argued this position in situations where government entities have threatened to boycott a company based upon its constitutionally protected speech and associational choices. This is especially true where the ideological position has no connection whatsoever with the business relationship at stake. Math teachers in Kansas and newspapers in Arkansas should not have to disavow participation in protected expression and association in order to do their jobs or engage in business relationships with the state. With the Combatting BDS Act, Congress would be approving state laws imposing such unconstitutional requirements.
On Monday, Sen. Marc Rubio (R-Fla.), the lead sponsor of the bill, tweeted:
However, as we , the government, under the Constitution, does not have the right to punish people for their views. The First Amendment protects the people, not the government.
Even setting aside our fundamental disagreement about the wisdom of the Combatting BDS Act, it is abundantly clear that the Senate should not be considering this legislation, or any other legislation, until it fulfills its first duty: maintaining a functioning government. The Senate should vote first to open the government and alleviate the pain of this interminable shutdown that disrupts people’s lives and livelihoods every second that it continues.
Sign up for the and get our finest content from the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.