85-600: The Israel Anti-Boycott Act (IABA) ( H.R. 1697 ; S. 720 ) was a proposed anti-BDS law and amendment to the Export Administration Act of 1979 designed to allow U.S. states to enact laws requiring contractors to sign pledges promising not to boycott any goods from Israel, or their contracts would be terminated, and to make it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment, for American citizens to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in
170-494: A double standard and delegitimizing the state of Israel . As of 2024, 38 states have passed bills and executive orders designed to discourage boycotts of Israel. Many of them have been passed with broad bipartisan support. Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel. Separately,
255-514: A variety of supplemental appropriations . Supplemental appropriations bills also provide funding for recovering from unexpected natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy (the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 ). Traditionally, after a federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year has been passed, the appropriations subcommittees receive information about what the budget sets as their spending ceilings. This
340-404: A Republican president would set a dangerously low ceiling for pro-Israel legislation – a lower one than existed under Obama. In late 2018, attempts were made from both sides of the aisle to include the bill in the appropriations bill . The attempts were criticized by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California) who stated: We believe including this bill would violate
425-512: A boycott against white merchants in Claiborne . The goal of the boycott was to pressure city officials to meet demands about racial integration. The Supreme Court in its decision found that boycotts to bring about political change occupy "the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values". Proponents contend that boycotting is not per se expressive conduct equivalent to speech and therefore not protected speech. They view calling for
510-419: A boycott as distinct from participating in one. The former would be protected speech, while the latter, which anti-BDS laws address, would not. Someone calling for a boycott of Israel would not be affected by anti-BDS laws as long as they themselves did not boycott Israel. To them, Claiborne Hardware is irrelevant because it affirmed the right to call for a boycott but not to participate in one. This view
595-399: A boycott of Israel is one of the few remaining options. Critics claim that anti-BDS laws are unconstitutional because participation in political boycotts is protected speech and the government cannot require citizens to relinquish First Amendment rights in exchange for government contracts. To show this, critics refer to NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. which was about an NAACP -initiated
680-644: A boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars. The bill died after being deferred to the United States House Committee on Education and Labor . Roskam and co-sponsor Juan Vargas introduced another anti-BDS bill, United States-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act ( H.R. 825 ), in February 2015. According to them, the bill would "leverage ongoing trade negotiations to discourage prospective U.S. trade partners from engaging in economic discrimination against Israel" through
765-401: A certificate that she was not involved in a boycott of Israel, which she refused to do. KSDE therefore declined to pay or contract with Koontz. Koontz brought a lawsuit against the state, represented by Kansas Commissioner of Education, Randall Watson and requested a preliminary injunction. The court granted Koontz request for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the law the state relied on
850-475: A continuing resolution, which generally continues the pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year (or with minor modifications) for a set amount of time. If Congress fails to pass an appropriation bill or a continuing resolution, or if the president vetoes a passed bill, it may result in a government shutdown . The third type of appropriations bills are supplemental appropriations bills, which add additional funding above and beyond what
935-473: A duty on states to "condemn racial segregation and apartheid" and to "prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction". The court further said member states should not recognize Israel's occupation as legal, nor should they render aid or assistance in maintaining it – a ruling that could "force companies and member states to differentiate between Israel and occupied territory when it comes to trade", according to
SECTION 10
#17327909466621020-569: A large number of countries that have embraced BDS. In March 2015, the Boycott Our Enemies, not Israel Act ( H.R. 1572 ) was introduced to the 114th session of Congress by Republican Representative Doug Lamborn to the House with 13 cosponsors. The bill required current and prospective government contractors to certify that they did not participate in a boycott of Israel. If they did, they would face penalties. The bill died in
1105-871: A legal doctrine for establishing causality in discrimination cases, is that BDS would not have boycotted Israel if not for its Jewish or Israeli identity. Critics counter that the but-for claim is not supported by evidence. They argue that since the majority of companies targeted for boycotts by the BNC are not Israeli companies, but foreign companies targeted for their complicity in the Israeli human rights violations, anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli animosity could not be BDS' motivation. Critics reason that if political boycotts of countries were illegal discrimination, many current and historical boycotts would also be illegal discrimination. The US sanctions against Iran would be anti-Iranian discrimination and if singling out an entity for boycott
1190-711: A legitimate protest tactic. According to a 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center , 5% of Americans support BDS and 84% do not know much about it. 17% of Republicans have some familiarity with BDS compared to 15% of Democrats, while 7% of the latter and 2% of Republicans support the movement. The spread of anti-BDS laws in U.S. states is largely due to the lobbying of the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF), an umbrella group of Israel lobbies headquartered in Jerusalem that has received funding from
1275-691: A particular group (Israelis) with the intent of inflicting economic harm on them. Since there is no legal test for deciding whether a consumer boycott is discriminatory, the discrimination argument is based on laws regulating discrimination in other areas, such as employment, disability and housing. In particular, two doctrines in labor law have been referred to: disparate treatment or "discriminatory intent" and disparate impact . These laws were not drafted to regulate political boycotts, which limits their applicability, but they have nevertheless been used to analyze whether boycotts of Israel are discriminatory. Disparate treatment refers to decision-making based on
1360-919: A person's membership in a protected class. Proponents argue that BDS leaders' calls for Israel to cease to exist as a "Jewish state" are antisemitic. Critics contend that the allegation is conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Opposing Israel as a Jewish state is anti-Zionist but not antisemitic, they argue. Critics also point out that the organization that coordinates BDS, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), officially opposes anti-Semitism and encourages supporters to select boycott targets based on their complicity in Israel's human rights violations and likelihood of success, rather than on their national origin or religious identity. Proponents note that BDS singles out Israel for boycott while ignoring human rights abuses in other parts of
1445-567: A privilege from boycotters: that of being eligible for government contracts. This argument runs afoul of the "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine, critics argue. The doctrine holds that the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech". This doctrine was promulgated in two seminal Supreme Court cases; Pickering v. Board of Education and Elrod v. Burns . However, these cases involved existing business relations between private entities and
1530-688: A senior legal adviser of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights quoted by the Washington Post . After the Oslo Accords had failed to bring peace between Israel and Palestine , believing Western leaders were no longer committed in holding Israel accountable for the allegations against human rights, Palestinian human right activists conceived a new peaceful movement to boycott Israel, for example, through refusal to buy any goods from Israel, in particular those made in
1615-589: A specific date or regular appropriations bills are passed, whichever comes first. There can be some minor changes to some of the accounts in a continuing resolution. Supplemental appropriations bills increase funding for activities that were already funded in previous appropriations bills or they provide new funding for unexpected expenses. For example, both the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War were funded with
1700-513: A specific viewpoint, namely of not boycotting Israel, which would be an unlawful "constitutional condition". Critics state that many anti-BDS laws are not specific enough in what activities they target. Timothy Cuffman cites the Arizona anti-BDS statute which defines a "boycott" as "engaging in a refusal to deal, terminating business activities or performing other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations". In his view, this definition
1785-399: A strong partisan divide on BDS; among those who had heard of BDS, 76% of Republicans opposed the movement, compared to 52% of Democrats. In a 2019 poll from Data for Progress 35% to 27% opposed anti-BDS laws. Split by party affiliation, 48% of Democrats opposed anti-BDS laws and 15% supported them; 27% of Republicans opposed anti-BDS laws and 44% supported them. 70%-80% believed boycotts were
SECTION 20
#17327909466621870-630: Is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment and that anti-BDS laws are a form of lawfare . IABA was drafted by Senators Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and introduced to the 115th session of Congress in 2018. It had 58 cosponsors in the Senate, and 292 cosponsors in the House (216 Republicans, 76 Democrats). The act consisted of House and Senate bills H.R. 1697 and S. 720 and died in Congress. However, there
1955-658: Is analogous to boycotting Israel, proponents argue. Since the Supreme Court ruled that denying access to military recruiters was not expressive conduct neither could boycotts of Israel be expressive conduct. Critics argue that the analogy does not hold because FAIR was not about boycotting and participation in a political boycott is obvious expressive conduct. Discarding Claiborne Hardware , proponents draw analogies between anti-BDS laws and anti-discrimination laws which forbid government contractors from discriminating based on gender and similar attributes. Critics argue that
2040-552: Is based on Longshoremen v. Allied Int'l, Inc. , where the Supreme Court held that a trade union that refused to unload cargo from the Soviet Union in protest against the country's invasion of Afghanistan had engaged in an illegal secondary boycott . Proponents claim that this case sets a precedent since it singled out a specific country and affected parties not directly involved in the dispute, just like boycotts of Israel do. Critics view Longshoremen as irrelevant because
2125-619: Is called 302(b) allocations after section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 . That amount is separated into smaller amounts for each of the twelve Subcommittees. The federal budget does not become law and is not signed by the president. Instead, it is a guide for the House and the Senate in making appropriations and tax decisions. However, no budget is required and each chamber has procedures in place for what to do without one. The House and Senate now consider appropriations bills simultaneously, although originally
2210-437: Is discriminatory, most political movements using boycotts would be discriminatory. The Anti-Apartheid Movement would have had to address the suffering of people in other African countries too, to escape the charge of singling out South Africa. Critics claim that is unreasonable. The disparate impact argument complements the disparate treatment argument by stating that the boycott harms Jewish or Israeli entities, even if that
2295-862: Is meant to enable states to pass anti-boycott legislation with federal blessing. It has received reception similar to IABA. On February 5, 2019, the Senate passed the bill and other Middle East policy bills. As of May 2019 it seems as though the House will not be taking up the bill in the foreseeable future. Supporters of the bill argue that it does not stymie free speech. The bills co-sponsor Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) tweeted: "Opposition to our bill isn’t about free speech. Companies are FREE to boycott Israel. But local and state governments should be free to end contracts with companies that do". Eugene Kontorovich who has helped states draft anti-BDS laws has argued that they aren't about free speech, but that those wishing to boycott Israel should not benefit from government contracts or taxpayer money. AIPAC continues to support
2380-471: Is not its intent. That is, the boycott is "fair in form, but discriminatory in operation". Critics argue that the disparate impact doctrine was developed with employment discrimination in mind and is not applicable to BDS and even if it was, the argument would fail. The plaintiff would have to show that the behavior has an adverse impact on Israeli or Jewish businesses. But the majority of companies targeted by BDS are not Israeli, making it difficult to argue that
2465-472: Is overly broad and extends far beyond the dictionary definition of the word "boycott". He further argues that many of the laws do not clarify whether divestment is to be considered a form of prohibited boycott or not, nor how a company could be penalized for partaking in "sanctions" as they are imposed by governments or intergovernmental entities. Proponents argue that the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and
2550-759: Is prevalent in much of the Muslim world, with the most prominent example being that of the Arab League boycott of Israel , which was first imposed in 1945 as part of an effort to weaken the Yishuv by targeting the Jewish economy in the British Mandate for Palestine . Israel's government has faced longstanding criticism of its conduct in the Palestinian territories it has occupied since 1967 . In July 2024,
2635-587: Is strong opposition to BDS in American politics and the act is expected to make a resurgence in the federal legislature in the future. In the 115th session of Congress it had 58 cosponsors in the Senate (42 Republicans, 15 Democrats, 1 Independent). The bill was introduced by the identical House and Senate bills H.R. 1697 and S. 720 on March 23, 2017, by Republican Representative Peter Roskam and Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin respectively. The purpose of
Israel Anti-Boycott Act - Misplaced Pages Continue
2720-613: Is the principal unsanctioned foreign boycott that U.S. persons must be concerned with today." In 2019, one of the co-sponsors to the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Marco Rubio , introduced the Combating BDS Act ( S. 1 ) to the 116th session of Congress in a package of three other bills related to the Middle East where it passed the Senate without much debate. The act has so far not been taken up in
2805-421: Is to be taken against whoever tries to boycott Israel. As of 2020, the question of whether American anti-BDS laws are constitutional has not yet been settled in courts. Many analysts believe that sooner or later there will be a legal showdown due to the controversial nature of the laws. The debate about the laws' constitutionality focuses on two central issues: The answer to the first question has implications for
2890-508: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee , whose staff designed the bill and ultimately watered it down in response to hostile Democratic demands as it proceeded through the legislative process. ... The Foreign Affairs Committee amendments are a clear capitulation to Democrats' embrace of at least some forms of BDS (so-called "settlements BDS"). For such a law to pass in a Republican Congress with
2975-462: The Export Administration Act of 1979 which penalizes individuals and companies participating in "international boycotts" establishes a precedent. Critics offer two responses; first, Claiborne Hardware was not settled in 1979 so it was not yet clear that political boycotts were protected speech; second, these acts referred to boycotts organized by foreign nations, but BDS is a grassroots initiative organized by civil society groups. Another argument
3060-636: The International Court of Justice declared in an advisory opinion that Israel's occupation was illegal and should be brought to an end as quickly as possible. Existing settlements should be evacuated and reparations paid to Palestinians who had lost land and property. The court also found that Israel was in violation of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Prevention of Racial Discrimination , which imposes
3145-538: The Israeli-occupied territories , or divesting funds from Israeli corporations. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, "BDS" for short, was formally announced in 2005, with the primary goal of pressuring Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. The Israeli government and its supporters believe that the BDS movement conforms to the definitions of anti-Semitism , most notably in applying to Israel
3230-682: The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 , does not target boycotts against Israel specifically, but makes it illegal to "comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by any foreign country, against a country which is friendly to the United States" 50 U.S.C. § 4842 and as the Office of Antiboycott Compliance notes "The Arab League boycott of Israel
3315-773: The Ministry of Strategic Affairs , wrote an email to Ohio Governor John Kasich after signing his state's anti-BDS bill into law: "I sincerely appreciate your contribution." In 2016, Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon , claimed that his government was "advancing legislation in many countries ... so that it will simply be illegal to boycott Israel." In February 2020, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted about his government's lobbying successes: Whoever boycotts us will be boycotted… In recent years, we have promoted laws in most US states, which determine that strong action
3400-796: The Muslim world . Since the Second Intifada in particular, these efforts have primarily been coordinated at an international level by the Palestinian-led BDS movement ("Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions"), which seeks to mount as much economic pressure on Israel as possible until the Israeli government allows an independent Palestinian state to be established. Anti-BDS laws are designed to make it difficult for anti-Israel people and organizations to participate in boycotts; anti-BDS legal resolutions are symbolic and non-binding parliamentary condemnations, either of boycotts of Israel or of
3485-642: The U.S. Congress has considered anti-boycott legislation in reaction to the BDS movement. The U.S. Senate passed S.1, which contained anti-boycott provisions, on January 28, 2019, by a vote of 74–19. The U.S. House passed a resolution condemning the boycott of Israel on July 24, 2019, by a vote of 398–17. Senators Marco Rubio ( R-FL ), Bill Cassidy ( R-LA ), Mike Braun ( R-IN ), Rick Scott ( R-FL ), Bill Hagerty ( R-TN ), and Steve Daines ( R-MT ) reintroduced the Combating BDS Act of 2023. So far, no federal law has been adopted. There has been debate over whether
Israel Anti-Boycott Act - Misplaced Pages Continue
3570-784: The U.S. Constitution states that "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." This is what gives Congress the power to make these appropriations. The president, however, still has the power to veto appropriations bills. However, the president does not have line-item veto authority, so they must either sign the entire bill into law or veto it. There are three types of appropriations bills: regular appropriations bills , continuing resolutions , and supplemental appropriations bills . In any given fiscal year, all three may be used. Traditionally, regular appropriations bills have provided most of
3655-852: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision holding that the law was constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment as it was intended to serve "purely commercial purposes". Appropriations bill (United States) In the United States Congress , an appropriations bill is legislation to appropriate federal funds to specific federal government departments, agencies and programs. The money provides funding for operations, personnel, equipment and activities. Regular appropriations bills are passed annually, with
3740-500: The BDS movement itself. Generally, such condemnations accuse BDS of closeted antisemitism , charging it with pushing a double standard and lobbying for the de-legitimization of Israeli sovereignty , and are often followed by laws targeting boycotts of Israel. Proponents of anti-BDS laws claim that BDS is a form of antisemitism, and so such laws legislate against hate speech . Opponents claim that Israel's supporters are engaging in lawfare by lobbying for anti-BDS laws that infringe upon
3825-490: The Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the motion for a preliminary injunction on January 23, 2019. It argued that Act 710 only "concerns a contractor's purchasing activities with respect to Israel" and that it does not prevent criticism of Israel or even calls to boycott Israel. It further asserted that purchasing activities are "neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct". The Court therefore concluded that
3910-599: The First Amendment did not protect the paper's refusal to promise to not boycott Israel. In February 2019, the paper represented by ACLU appealed the decision to United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit . In April 2019, the Institute for Free Speech and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education filed an amicus brief arguing that Act 710 is unconstitutional. Reporters Committee for Freedom of
3995-533: The Foreign Affairs Committee. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act ( H.R. 1697 ; S. 720 ) was introduced to the House and Senate by two identical bills on in March 2017 by Roskam and Democratic Senator Ben Cardin respectively. After causing a great deal of debate over its implications on free speech and the act eventually died in Congress. The Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, passed as part of
4080-673: The House went first. The House Committee on Appropriations usually reports the appropriations bills in May and June and the Senate in June. Any differences between appropriations bills passed by the House and the Senate are resolved in the fall. The United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations have jurisdiction over appropriations bills. Both committees have twelve matching subcommittees tasked with working on one of
4165-540: The House. The House of Representatives passed a bill in July 2019 condemning the BDS movement, with a bipartisan vote of 398–17, with five abstentions. As of 2020, a handful of plaintiffs have sued states with anti-BDS laws charging that they violate their First Amendment rights, with decisions being split. In 2017, Mikkel Jordahl, who ran his own law firm and contracted with the State of Arizona, refused to certify that he
4250-898: The IABA and similar legislation, saying that, "(the legislation) protects the First Amendment rights of those who choose to boycott Israel in their personal capacity." However, organizations like the ACLU disagree and have sought lawsuits on those grounds. Anti-BDS laws With regard to the Arab–Israeli conflict , many supporters of the State of Israel have often advocated or implemented anti- BDS laws (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), which effectively seek to retaliate against people and organizations engaged in boycotts of Israel-affiliated entities . Most organized boycotts of Israel have been led by Palestinians and other Arabs with support from much of
4335-666: The Israeli American Council wrote in an op-ed in The Hill : In essence, the amended Israel Anti-Boycott Act has not merely been amended. Rather, it eliminates the fundamental operating provisions of the original bill by only providing impermanent, easily revocable protections for the Israeli-controlled territories the UNHRC is specifically seeking to target. The blame for this unraveling belongs to AIPAC,
SECTION 50
#17327909466624420-516: The Israeli government. In 2015, in response to South Carolina's anti-BDS law, IAF announced that it had drafted a model act , combining the anti-BDS bills in South Carolina and Illinois. A model act is a "template bill" that can be enacted in many legislatures with little or no modification. IAF also announced that 18 more states were "committed to introducing" similar legislation in their states. The Copy, Paste, Legislate investigation into
4505-477: The Kansas state legislature amended the law so that it would not affect Koontz and ACLU that had represented Koontz dropped the case. The weekly newspaper Arkansas Times had for two years published over 83 paid advertisements on a contractual basis for University of Arkansas – Pulaski Technical College . In October 2018, before renewing the advertising contract, the university asked the paper to certify that it
4590-669: The Press and 15 news media organizations filed another one in support of the paper, while StandWithUs , Agudath Israel of America , and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America filed one in support of the State. In February 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the decision of the lower court and determined that the Arkansas law violated the First Amendment. On June 22, 2022,
4675-428: The Senate. The amended bill removed the jail time provisions, but knowing violations of the bill could still lead to criminal financial penalties of up to $ 1 million. All three versions of the bill were unconstitutional, according to those critics who criticized it on First Amendment grounds. The amended versions of the bill were also criticized by proponents of anti-BDS laws. Republicans Alan Clemmons and Joseph Sabag of
4760-496: The analogy is inappropriate because, for example, an employer refusing to hire gay people is neither a political act nor expressive conduct. Even if a boycott has a discriminatory component, which the boycott ruled on in Claiborne Hardware had, it is still protected speech, critics assert. Another objection to Claiborne Hardware is that the case was about the lawfulness of boycotts, but anti-BDS laws merely withdraw
4845-403: The answer to the latter; if the boycotts of Israel are discriminatory, the government could be free to enact laws against them. In the following sections, those who claim that anti-BDS laws are constitutional are referred to as "proponents" and those that claim that they aren't are referred to as "critics". Proponents argue that boycotts of Israel are a form of discrimination because they target
4930-592: The bill was to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to bar US citizens from supporting boycotts against Israel, including its settlements. Violations would be subject to minimum civil penalty of $ 250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $ 1 million and 20 years in prison. The bill cited the United Nations Human Rights Council 's (UNHRC) March 2016 resolution calling for
5015-457: The bill, withdrew her support from it in 2017, citing concerns over free speech. She stated that she remained opposed to the BDS movement. The pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC criticized her change of heart. In 2019, Senator Marco Rubio, who cosponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, introduced the Combating BDS Act , cosponsored by Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colorado), Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), and Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri). The bill
5100-461: The bills are considered separately at the beginning and get combined later because inability to pass bills individually has led to the exigency of a potential government shutdown. Omnibus bills can "veto-proof" items: measures that the president would otherwise veto can be passed by folding them into an omnibus bill, the vetoing of which would be perceived as harmful. When a new fiscal year starts on October 1 and Congress has not passed some or all of
5185-481: The boycott harms such entities. Even if Jewish or Israeli business were disproportionately impacted by BDS' boycott, critics argue that BDS could defend its boycott as a "business necessity" because its goal, ending Israel's human rights violations, is legitimate. An objection could be that BDS should use other methods that does not affect third parties. But given the failure of the many political initiatives in ending Israel's human rights violations, BDS could argue that
SECTION 60
#17327909466625270-523: The case was about labor law and such boycotts have consistently been analyzed differently from boycotts by civil rights groups. The Protect Academic Freedom Act ( H.R. 1409 ) was introduced to the 113th session of Congress by Republican Representative Peter Roskam on February 6, 2014. The bill would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 making institutions of higher education ineligible from federal funding if they participated in
5355-467: The creation of a database of companies operating in the occupied Palestinian territories as an example of a boycott supposedly covered by the law. Anyone choosing to not buy from companies listed in the database could, according to the bill's critics, be in violation and risk facing penalties or even jail time. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed an amended version of the bill on June 28, 2018, and on March 3, 2018, Cardin released an amended version in
5440-557: The decision was pending, the certification requirement was amended by bill SB 1167 so that Jordahl and his law firm would be exempted. The appeals court therefore found that the claim was now moot . In May 2017, public school educator Esther Koontz began a personal boycott against Israeli businesses. On July 10, 2017, Koontz was to begin to serve as a teacher trainer implemented by the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE). The program director asked Koontz to sign
5525-508: The federal government's annual funding. The text of the bill is divided into "accounts" with some larger agencies having several separate accounts (for things like salaries or research/development) and some smaller agencies just having one. The appropriations bill provides a specified amount of money for each individual account, and can also include conditions or restrictions on the use of the money. Agencies cannot move money from one account to another without permission from Congress (or having
5610-439: The funding they provide covering one fiscal year. The fiscal year is the accounting period of the federal government, which runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year. Appropriations bills are under the jurisdiction of the United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations . Both committees have twelve matching subcommittees, each tasked with working on one of
5695-462: The government. Whether the doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions" applies to situations where no existing business relationship exists has not been addressed by the Supreme Court. Critics also cite USAID v. Alliance for Open Society (2013) where the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot require organizations to profess to a specific viewpoint as a condition for government funding. But anti-BDS laws coerce contractors bidding to profess to
5780-581: The laws violate the right to free speech and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) have challenged many of them in court cases. According to University of Maryland 's Critical Issues Poll from October 2019, a majority of Americans oppose anti-BDS laws; 72% opposed laws penalizing people who boycott Israel and 22% supported such laws. The poll also found
5865-559: The money, is done in an appropriations bill. The appropriations committees have power because they can decide whether to fund these programs at the maximum level authorized, a lesser amount, or not at all. Between fiscal year 1977 and fiscal year 2012, Congress only passed all twelve regular appropriations bills on time in four years – fiscal years 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997. Every other fiscal year since 1977 has required at least one continuing resolution. For example, in 2013, Congress failed to agree on any regular appropriations bills prior to
5950-523: The monitoring of pro-BDS activities of foreign companies that trade on American stock exchanges and by prohibiting American courts from "enforcing rulings made by foreign courts against American companies solely for conducting business in Israel". However, the bill did not impose penalties for supporting BDS. Roskam justified the bill, which could affect negotiations for the Transatlantic Free Trade Area , by claiming that there were
6035-501: The occupied Palestinian territories. The proposed law was a response to the BDS movement 's call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. As of 2020, 32 state legislatures have already passed bills similar to IABA. If the law was passed in the federal legislature, it would be easier to enforce. Critics of the law and supporters of BDS claim that it is unconstitutional. They claim that participation in politically motivated boycotts
6120-475: The president declare a national emergency ), which can be found in some appropriations bills. These are known as transfers. Agencies can shift some of the funding around to different activities within the same account, known as reprogramming. The appropriations subcommittees oversee such changes. Occasionally Congress packages several of the twelve appropriations bills into one larger bill called an omnibus spending bill or an omnibus appropriation measure. Often
6205-554: The proliferation of model acts in U.S. state politics revealed that, in addition to IAF, AIPAC , the Israel Action Network , and local Jewish Federations were directly involved in lobbying for anti-BDS laws. In three states, Arizona, California, and Nevada, the lobbying efforts were spearheaded by Dillon Hosier, a lobbyist working for Adam Milstein 's Israeli-American Council . Israeli officials congratulated some states after enacting anti-BDS bills. Gilad Erdan of
6290-425: The regular appropriations bills, Congress may extend their funding and budget authority based on the previous year, with possible minor modifications, using a continuing resolution . If all twelve regular appropriations bills have been passed, a continuing resolution is not necessary. Continuing resolutions typically provide funding at a rate or formula based on the previous year's funding. The funding extends until
6375-561: The right to free speech, and conflating anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The specific provisions of anti-BDS laws vary widely. Legislation, to any degree, against boycotts of Israel is prevalent in much of the Western world , and especially in the United States , which has been Israel's closest ally on the international stage since the 1960s . Conversely, legislation promoting or enforcing boycotts of Israel
6460-529: The spirit of cooperation and commitment that Senate appropriators have made to oppose controversial riders on appropriations bills, ... While we do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, we remain resolved to our constitutional oath to defend the right of every American to express their views peacefully without fear of or actual punishment by the government . . . . Senator Kirsten Gillibrand , who originally co-sponsored
6545-867: The start of fiscal year 2014. An attempt was made to pass the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res 59) prior to October 1, but the House and Senate could not agree on its provisions, leading to the United States federal government shutdown of 2013 . The federal government resumed operations on October 17, 2013 after the passage of a continuing resolution, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 , that provided funding until January 15, 2014. On January 15, 2014, Congress passed another continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 106 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014 , to provide funding until January 18, 2014. Congress finally passed
6630-451: The twelve annual regular appropriations bills. There are three types of appropriations bills: regular appropriations bills , continuing resolutions , and supplemental appropriations bills . Regular appropriations bills are the twelve standard bills that cover the funding for the federal government for one fiscal year to be enacted into law by October 1. If Congress has not enacted the regular appropriations bills by that time, it may pass
6715-410: The twelve annual regular appropriations bills. Other committees and lawmakers in Congress write legislation creating programs and reauthorizing old ones to continue. This legislation is called an authorization bill . In this legislation, they authorize these programs to exist, and they authorize the expenditure of funds on them, but they cannot actually give them the money. That second step, of granting
6800-488: The world. They argue that this focus is driven by animosity towards Jews or Israelis and that it is circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent. They refer to the Working Definition of Antisemitism which gives "Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" as an example of antisemitism. The claim, which relies on the but-for test ,
6885-448: Was likely unconstitutional and that Kansas therefore must not enforce the law. The court declared that Koontz' conduct was "inherently expressive" because it was easily associated "with the message that the boycotters believe Israel should improve its treatment of Palestinians". The court further concluded that forcing Koontz "to disown her boycott is akin to forcing plaintiff to accommodate Kansas's message of support for Israel". In 2018
6970-537: Was not participating in boycotts of Israel. Consequently, the state refused to pay him. Jordahl sued the state claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated. On September 27, 2018, the Arizona district court ruled in his favor, granting him a preliminary injunction , preventing the state from enforcing the bill's certification requirement. The court ruled that Arizona's anti-BDS laws were applied to politically motivated actions and therefore did not regulate only commercial speech. The state appealed. While
7055-426: Was not, and would not, engage in boycotts against Israel. The paper had supplied such certifications before, but this time the paper's publisher and chief executive officer Alan Leveritt, refused. The paper brought the matter to trial and challenged the constitutionality of Act 710, claiming that it violated the paper's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and requested a preliminary injunction. The District Court for
7140-421: Was originally appropriated at the beginning of the fiscal year. Supplemental appropriations bills may be used for areas of sudden need, such as disaster relief. Appropriations bills are one part of a larger United States budget and spending process . They are preceded in that process by the president's budget proposal, congressional budget resolutions, and the 302(b) allocation. Article I, section 9, clause 7 of
7225-431: Was taken by the Arkansas district court that ruled on Arkansas Times LP v. Mark Waldrip . It argued that Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. ( FAIR ) was the controlling case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could withhold funds from universities for refusing to give military recruiters access to school resources. Universities denying access to military recruiters
#661338