The Arkansas Times has successfully challenged a law that prohibits the state from doing business with companies that boycott Israel.
The Little Rock-based weekly filed the lawsuit in 2018 and was represented by the ACLU. The paper takes no official position on BDS, but it launched the legal challenge after the University of Arkansas Pulaski Technical College refused to sign an advertising contract with The Arkansas Times, unless it signed the pledge. A U.S. district court judge dismissed the case in 2019, but last week the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision.
“We’re thrilled by the court’s ruling, which upholds the fundamental right to participate in political boycotts,” said ACLU attorney Brian Hauss in a statement. “The government cannot force people to choose between their livelihoods and their First Amendment rights, which is what this law did. Political boycotts are a legitimate form of nonviolent protest, and they are protected by the First Amendment.”
CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad echoed these sentiments in a statement. “Today’s federal ruling represents a critically important moment in the struggle to protect free speech here at home and advance human rights overseas,” he said. “From Arizona, to Texas, to Arkansas, numerous courts now recognize the obvious: states cannot require individuals or corporations to sign an oath pledging support for the Israeli government as a condition for working with a state government.”
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge expressed frustration with the ruling. The Attorney General is disappointed in the Eighth Circuit’s decision, which interferes with Arkansas’s law banning discrimination against Israel, an important American ally,” a spokesperson from her office told The Associated Press.
On the same day of the Arkansas decision, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attacked the UN Human Rights Council for publishing a list of companies that do business in the occupied territories. In his statement, Netanyahu acknowledged that Israel promotes anti-BDS laws within the United States: “In recent years, we have promoted laws in most US states, which determine that strong action is to be taken against whoever tries to boycott Israel.”
I’m wondering – will liberal Zionists care more about Israel or the first Amendment?
“Court Rules Against Arkansas’ Israel Boycott Pledge Law”
“A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Arkansas’ law requiring state contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel is unconstitutional”
The Associated Press. Haaretz. Feb. 14, 2021
“A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Arkansas’ law requiring state contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel is unconstitutional.”
EXCERPT:
“A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal judge’s 2019 decision that dismissed the lawsuit by the Arkansas Times challenging the requirement. The newspaper had asked the judge to block the law, which requires contractors with the state to reduce their fees by 20% if they don’t sign the pledge.
“The court said the law is written so broadly that it would also apply to vendors that support or promote a boycott.
“’The Act prohibits the contractor from engaging in boycott activity outside the scope of the contractual relationship ‘on its own time and dime,’ the court said in its 2-1 decision. ‘Such a restriction violates the First Amendment.’
“The Times’ lawsuit said the University of Arkansas Pulaski Technical College refused to contract for advertising with the newspaper unless the Arkansas Times signed the pledge. The newspaper isn’t engaged in a boycott against Israel.
“The appeals panel sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Brian Miller, who ruled in 2019 that refusing to purchase items wasn’t protected speech by the First Amendment.
“’Arkansas politicians had no business penalizing our clients for refusing to participate in this ideological litmus test,’ said Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represented the Times in the case. ‘Free speech isn’t a privilege you pay for, it’s a right guaranteed to every Arkansan.'”
What is important here is that the decision upheld Claiborne v. NAACP. THAT is a breakthrough.
Seeking a bit more information I found a report on Katv.com which mentioned that the Arkansas law applied to dealings valued ay $1000, whereas similar legislation in other states had been ‘allowed to be enforced’ if limited to ‘larger contracts’. The case is not completely ended, it seems, just sent back to the judge who originally sided with the State. This may be rather a limited victory.