Anti-Israel boycott laws in the United States operate on two levels: a federal framework that bars American companies from cooperating with foreign-government boycotts of Israel, and a growing patchwork of state laws that condition public contracts and pension investments on a pledge not to boycott. As of 2023, 38 states had some version of the state-level rules in effect.1Palestine Legal. Anti-Boycott Legislation Tracker Whether the state versions violate the First Amendment remains contested, with only one federal appeals court having ruled on the merits.
What Federal Law Prohibits
The federal anti-boycott regime dates to 1977, when Congress amended the Export Administration Act in response to the Arab League’s boycott of Israel. That framework was updated and re-codified in 2018 as the Anti-Boycott Act, now at 50 U.S.C. §§ 4841–4843, and enforced by the Commerce Department’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Export Control Reform Act of 2018, Subchapter II
The law prohibits U.S. persons from taking three kinds of action in furtherance of a foreign country’s boycott against a country friendly to the United States:
- Refusing to do business with Israel or Israeli companies at the direction of a boycotting government.
- Discriminating against U.S. persons in employment based on race, religion, sex, or national origin as a condition of doing business in a boycotting country.
- Furnishing information about business relationships in or with Israel that could be used to enforce a boycott.
Civil penalties reach $374,474 per violation (as of January 2025) or twice the value of the transaction, whichever is greater. Willful violations can bring criminal fines of up to $1 million and up to 20 years in prison.3Bureau of Industry and Security. Office of Antiboycott Compliance
A separate federal tool, the Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, works through the tax code. Codified at 26 U.S.C. § 999, it denies foreign tax credits, defers foreign income benefits, and revokes Foreign Sales Corporation benefits for companies that cooperate with unsanctioned foreign boycotts. All U.S. taxpayers with foreign operations must file IRS Form 5713 to report any boycott-related requests they receive. Willful failure to file carries a fine of up to $25,000 and up to one year in prison.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 U.S.C. § 999 The Treasury Department publishes the list of boycotting countries; as of 2026 it includes Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.5White & Case. Internal Revenue Code Section 999
An important limit runs through both statutes: they target compliance with foreign-government boycotts. A U.S. individual who chooses on their own not to buy Israeli products is not covered. The Ribicoff Amendment expressly distinguishes primary boycotts (a country restricting its own trade), which it does not penalize, from secondary and tertiary boycotts, which it does.6IRS. International Boycott Reports
State Contractor and Divestment Laws
Most Americans who encounter anti-boycott rules encounter them at the state level. Between 2014 and 2023, at least 293 anti-boycott bills were introduced across the country, and 38 states have enacted some form of the legislation.1Palestine Legal. Anti-Boycott Legislation Tracker The laws generally take one of two forms.
The first is a contractor certification requirement. A business seeking a state contract must sign a written pledge that it is not engaged in a boycott of Israel and will not engage in one for the life of the contract. Refusal to sign disqualifies the business from the contract. Texas passed one of the earliest versions, HB 89, which Governor Greg Abbott signed on May 2, 2017.7Office of the Texas Governor. Anti-Israel Policies Are Anti-Texas Policies
The second is a divestment mandate directing state pension funds and investment boards to pull money from companies identified as participating in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.8Just Vision. Anti-Boycott Legislation Tracker
The scope has expanded over time in two directions. After early court challenges, several states, including Texas, Arizona, and Georgia, amended their laws to exempt small contracts (commonly those under $100,000) and companies below a certain size (often fewer than 10 employees). At the same time, states have added new protected industries. Alabama, Utah, and Arkansas now cover fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, timber, and firearms alongside Israel. Utah’s 2023 law added fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, and firearms to its Israel statute and also reached companies that fail to meet certain environmental, reproductive health, or gender-affirming care standards.8Just Vision. Anti-Boycott Legislation Tracker Florida enacted SB 1678 in June 2025, extending its framework to academic boycotts and requiring grant applicants to certify they will not engage in antisemitic discrimination on funded projects.9Florida Senate. SB 1678 – Entities That Boycott Israel
Movement in the other direction has begun as well. In 2025 and 2026, lawmakers in Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, and Utah introduced bills to repeal either Israel-focused or energy-industry boycott laws.8Just Vision. Anti-Boycott Legislation Tracker
The First Amendment Argument
The constitutional question turns on whether a boycott is expressive activity protected by the First Amendment or ordinary commercial conduct that a state may regulate.
Opponents, led most visibly by the ACLU, point to the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., which held that nonviolent, politically motivated boycotts are protected expression occupying the “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”10ACLU of Southern California. Congress’s Threat to Americans’ First Amendment Right to Boycott The ACLU has been clear that it takes no position on BDS itself, only on the government’s power to penalize the choice to participate.11ACLU. ACLU Letter Opposing Final Passage of S. 1 The organization has compared state certification requirements to McCarthy-era loyalty oaths that force individuals to choose between their livelihoods and their political convictions.
Defenders of the laws counter that a purchasing decision, by itself, is not inherently expressive, and that the government may set conditions on how it spends public money. That argument draws on Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006), which the Eighth Circuit later relied on to uphold Arkansas’s law.
What the Courts Have Actually Decided
Only one federal appeals court has ruled on the merits of a state anti-BDS law. In Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the Arkansas Times refused to sign a certification required by Arkansas Act 710 as a condition of a state advertising contract. Sitting en banc, the Eighth Circuit held on June 22, 2022, that the law does not violate the First Amendment. The majority read the statute’s definition of “boycotting Israel” as reaching only commercial, non-expressive conduct, applying Rumsfeld v. FAIR. Judge Jane Kelly dissented, arguing the statute’s language was broad enough to sweep in protected speech and association.12Justia. Arkansas Times LP v. Mark Waldrip The Supreme Court declined to take the case on February 21, 2023.13SCOTUSblog. Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip
District courts in Arizona, Kansas, Texas, and Georgia have ruled in favor of plaintiffs challenging their states’ laws. In each case, the legislature amended the statute before an appellate court could resolve the constitutional question, and the challenges were dismissed as moot.14Lawfare. Eighth Circuit Upholds Arkansas Anti-BDS Law
In Jordahl v. Brnovich, an Arizona contract attorney was denied payment for refusing to sign the state certification. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in September 2018. While the appeal was pending, Arizona amended the law to exempt companies with fewer than 10 employees or contracts under $100,000, which excluded Jordahl. The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction and dismissed the case as moot in January 2020.15Center for Constitutional Rights. Jordahl v. Brnovich Amicus16Courthouse News Service. Jordahl v. Brnovich Ninth Circuit Opinion
In Martin v. Wrigley, journalist Abby Martin was required to sign a certification for a speaking engagement at Georgia Southern University. The district court in May 2021 found the requirement constituted “unconstitutional compelled speech.” Georgia then amended its law to exempt contracts under $100,000, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal in June 2023 without reaching the constitutional question.17Palestine Legal. Legal Challenges to Anti-Boycott Laws18U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Martin v. Chancellor for the Board of Regents
Texas produced a different kind of ruling. After the state amended HB 89, a Houston engineering firm challenged the revised law and won a preliminary injunction at the district court. The Fifth Circuit reversed in July 2023, but on standing grounds, not the First Amendment. The court held that the plaintiff could not sue the state Attorney General because the statute did not expressly grant that office enforcement authority, and Houston’s independent decision to include the anti-boycott clause severed the chain of causation. The dismissal was without prejudice, so a new suit remains possible if the Attorney General takes enforcement action.19Justia. A & R Engineering v. Scott
The result: Arkansas Times stands as the sole appellate precedent on the merits, and every district-court ruling against a state law has been vacated after legislative amendments made the case moot.
Federal Bills That Would Expand the Framework
Congress has tried repeatedly to add to the federal anti-boycott regime, without success so far.
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, introduced in 2017 by Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman (R-OH) with a House companion, would have extended existing prohibitions to cover boycotts called for by international governmental organizations. Civil penalties would have reached $250,000; willful criminal violations up to $1 million and 20 years in prison.20ACLU. The First Amendment Protects the Right to Boycott Israel21ACLU. The Right to Boycott Is Under Attack22ACLU of Tennessee. How the Israel Anti-Boycott Act Threatens First Amendment Rights
The Combating BDS Act was folded into S. 1 in the 116th Congress. Rather than penalizing boycott activity, it would have declared that state and local anti-BDS laws are not preempted by federal law, provided they met certain procedural requirements including a 90-day written-notice period. The Senate passed the package 77–23 on February 5, 2019, but the House never took it up.23Lawfare. Breaking Down the Combating BDS Act of 2019
In the current 119th Congress, Representatives Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) reintroduced the IGO Anti-Boycott Act (H.R. 867) on January 31, 2025. The bill would amend the Export Control Reform Act to reach boycotts called for by international governmental organizations such as the United Nations, which sponsors describe as a loophole in current law. A prior version passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee 42–3 and cleared the full House on a voice vote before stalling in the Senate.24Congress.gov. H.R. 867 – IGO Anti-Boycott Act25Office of Rep. Lawler. Lawler and Gottheimer Reintroduce the IGO Anti-Boycott Act
A separate bill, the Countering Hate Against Israel by Federal Contractors Act (H.R. 3050), was introduced on April 28, 2025, by Representative Claudia Tenney (R-NY) with cosponsors including Elise Stefanik, Greg Steube, Michael Lawler, and Ben Cline. It would bar federal agencies from contracting with companies that boycott Israel.26GovInfo. H.R. 3050 – Countering Hate Against Israel by Federal Contractors Act