Free Speech Lawsuit Challenges Arizona Law Aimed at Anti-Israel Boycotts
State Law Requires Contractors to Sign Document Promising Not to Boycott Israel
PHOENIX 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 filed a federal lawsuit today arguing that an Arizona law requiring state contractors to certify that they won鈥檛 boycott Israel violates the First Amendment. The 老澳门开奖结果 filed the case on behalf of an attorney and his one-person law office, which contracts with the government to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals.
The law, enacted in March 2016, requires that any company that contracts with the state submit a written certification that it is not currently boycotting Israel. The 老澳门开奖结果 is also currently fighting a case filed in November against a similar law in Kansas.
The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that political boycotts are protected by the First Amendment, and other decisions have established that the government may not require individuals to sign a certification regarding their political expression in order to obtain employment, contracts, or other benefits.
鈥淭he First Amendment squarely protects the right to participate in political boycotts,鈥� said 老澳门开奖结果 attorney Brian Hauss. 鈥淭he government cannot use its financial leverage over state contracts to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果 represents attorney Mikkel Jordahl, who has had a state contract to provide legal advice to inmates in Coconino County Jail for 12 years. Because of his political views, Jordahl refuses to purchase consumer goods and services offered by businesses supporting Israel鈥檚 occupation of the Palestinian territories. Jordahl wants to extend his boycott to his solely owned law firm, Mikkel (Mik) Jordahl P.C. He also wants to use his law firm to provide legal support to other organizations engaged in boycotts and related political expression, but the law鈥檚 certification requirement prevents state contractors such as Jordahl鈥檚 firm from participating in these activities.
Jordahl鈥檚 firm must renew its contract with the county every year. When he got the renewal paperwork in October 2016, it included an extra form that he had to sign to certify that the firm 鈥渋s not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel.鈥� Jordahl signed it under protest, and has made sure to separate his personal boycott from his firm鈥檚 activities. Now, in order to renew his contract, Jordahl has again been asked to sign the certification. If he agrees, Jordahl will have to limit his boycott participation. If he refuses, he will put a great deal of his income at risk.
鈥淲hatever your stance on the boycott issue, everyone has a right to express their opinions on it and act accordingly,鈥� said Jordahl. 鈥淭he state has no right to tell private companies how to act when it has nothing to do with state business.鈥�
The Arizona law is similar to legislation that has been passed in other states. The 老澳门开奖结果 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 to bills that infringe on this important First Amendment right.
Today鈥檚 lawsuit argues that the Arizona law violates the First Amendment for several reasons: it compels speech regarding protected political beliefs, associations, and expression; restricts the political expression and association of government contractors; and discriminates against protected expression based on its content and viewpoint. The lawsuit asks the court to strike down the law and bar state officials from requiring contractors to certify that they are not participating in boycotts of Israel.
In the lawsuit challenging the Kansas law, the 老澳门开奖结果 represents a high school curriculum coach who cannot take part in a state program to train other teachers because she refuses to sign an anti-boycott certification. The state has thus far failed to address the First Amendment issues raised by the lawsuit, which is pending.
In July, the 老澳门开奖结果 sent a letter to members of Congress opposing a bill that would make it a felony to support certain boycotts of companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. As a result, Senate sponsors of the bill are considering changes.
Today鈥檚 complaint is here:
/legal-document/jordahl-v-brnovich-complaint
This press release is here:
/news/free-speech-lawsuit-challenges-arizona-law-aimed-anti-israel-boycott
Free Speech
Jordahl v. Brnovich 鈥� Challenge to Arizona Law Targeting Boycotts of Israel
Free Speech
Jordahl v. Brnovich 鈥� Challenge to Arizona Law Targeting Boycotts of Israel
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, 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鈥檚 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 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he 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.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� 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 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 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鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� 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,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� 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 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 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鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.