After Court Defeat, Kansas Changes Law Aimed at Boycotts of Israel
ACLU Withdraws Free Speech Lawsuit Against Law Requiring Contractors to Sign Document Promising Not to Boycott Israel
TOPEKA, Kan. — Following amendments to a Kansas law that required a public school educator to certify that she wouldn’t boycott Israel, the American Civil Liberties Union agreed to dismiss its lawsuit challenging the law.
In January, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, finding that it violated the First Amendment right to participate in political boycotts. It was the first ruling addressing a wave of laws nationwide aiming to punish people who boycott Israel. The ACLU is also fighting a similar law in Arizona.
The Kansas law, which went into effect last July, had required that any person or company that contracts with the state submit a written certification that they are “not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel.”
In April, the Legislature enacted changes to the law, narrowing its scope in three ways. First, the anti-boycott certification requirement no longer applies to individuals or sole proprietors. Second, the certification requirement applies to companies only if they conduct more than $100,000 worth of business with the state. Finally, companies required to sign the certification must now state that they are “not engaged in a boycott of goods or services from Israel that constitute an integral part of business conducted or sought to be conducted with the state.”
ACLU attorney Brian Hauss, who argued the issue in court, said, “Thanks to the court’s ruling, Kansas lawmakers have now scaled back this law, but it still runs afoul of the First Amendment. The appropriate response would have been to repeal the law in its entirety. While the changes reduce the number of people required to sign the anti-boycott certification, the fundamental purpose of the law — to suppress political boycotts of Israel and chill protected expression — remains unconstitutional."
The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Esther Koontz, who belongs to the Mennonite Church USA. In accordance with calls for boycott made by members of her congregation and her church, Koontz decided not to buy consumer products made by Israeli companies and international companies operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Koontz participates in this boycott in order to protest the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians and to pressure the country to change its policies.
Having served as a public school math teacher for nine years, Koontz now develops her school’s curriculum and trains teachers on how to implement it. She is also qualified to train teachers statewide as a contractor with the Kansas Department of Education’s Math and Science Partnerships program. When Koontz was asked to certify that she does not participate in a boycott of Israel, she said that she could not sign the form in good conscience. As a result, the state refused to contract with her, and she was unable to participate as a trainer in the state’s program. The amendments to the law mean that it no longer applies to her.
The court’s January decision found that the anti-boycott certification requirement was designed to suppress the message of those participating in boycotts of Israel. The court accordingly concluded that Kansas’s law imposed “a plainly unconstitutional choice” on state contractors: Either disavow their participation in boycotts of Israel or forfeit the opportunity to work for the state.
In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree wrote, “[T]he Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.”
The Kansas law is similar to legislation that has been passed in numerous other states. The ACLU does not take a position on boycotts of foreign countries, but the organization has long supported the right to participate in political boycotts and has voiced opposition to bills that infringe on this important First Amendment right. In the lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the ACLU represents an attorney and his one-person law office, which contracts with the government to provide legal services to incarcerated people.
The ACLU opposes a bill introduced in Congress that would criminalize participation in certain political boycotts targeting Israel.
More information on the Kansas case is here:
/cases/koontz-v-watson-challenge-kansas-law-targeting-boycotts-israel
Free Speech
Koontz v. Watson — Challenge to Kansas Law Targeting Boycotts of Israel
Free Speech
Koontz v. Watson — Challenge to Kansas Law Targeting Boycotts of Israel
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.