Are There States Where It’s Illegal to Boycott Israel? What U.S. Laws Actually Restrict

In some states, a person or business can face restrictions on certain state contracts or investment relationships if they participate in a boycott of Israel. That does not mean that ordinary private citizens are generally forbidden from boycotting Israeli products. Most state measures target government spending, public investments, or formal certifications—not every personal or commercial decision. Their scope and legal status vary, and the First Amendment remains central to the debate.

Is It Illegal to Boycott Israel in the United States?

There is no nationwide law that generally makes it illegal for Americans to boycott Israel. State laws and executive actions in a number of states impose conditions on some public contracts, restrict certain public investments, or require contractors to certify that they are not boycotting Israel. These rules can affect a company’s eligibility for government business, but that is different from a blanket criminal ban on private boycotts.

The details matter. A state measure may apply only to a particular agency, contract type, spending threshold, or investment fund. It may define a covered boycott narrowly, or provide exceptions for small businesses and individuals. Some provisions have also been challenged or limited in court. So the answer to whether a boycott is “illegal” depends on the state, the conduct, the person or organization involved, and the specific law in force.

What Does “Anti-BDS Law” Mean?

Many state measures are commonly called anti-BDS laws. BDS stands for “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions,” a movement that calls for economic pressure on Israel over Palestinian rights and Israeli government policies. The term is also used more broadly in legislation to describe certain business decisions to refuse commercial relations with Israel or with companies doing business there.

These laws do not all work the same way. Some tell state agencies not to contract with companies that meet a legal definition of boycotting Israel. Others direct public pension systems or state investment funds to divest from companies that boycott Israel. A measure may use one approach, combine several, or rely on an executive order rather than a statute.

As a result, saying that a state “banned the boycott” can be misleading. In many cases, the rule is better described as a condition on receiving public money or doing business with a state entity. Whether a particular action is covered depends on the law’s wording and how courts or agencies interpret it.

Which States Have Restrictions Related to Boycotting Israel?

State legislation has spread widely, but the number of states with a measure—and the number with an enforceable restriction—can vary depending on how trackers count statutes, executive orders, investment rules, and measures later challenged in court. The National Conference of State Legislatures and civil-liberties organizations track state activity; their categories and updates may differ.

Examples illustrate the range of approaches. The states below are not a complete list, and a state’s law may have been amended, narrowed, or interpreted since enactment. Anyone evaluating an actual contract or investment should check current state law and obtain legal advice.

This table describes broad examples, not a guarantee that every provision applies to every contractor. State statutes can change, and agencies may issue rules or forms that affect compliance. A contractor should consult the current statute, procurement documents, and the relevant agency rather than relying on a general summary.

Who Can Be Affected by These Laws?

Companies seeking state contracts

The most common restriction concerns businesses that want to sell goods or services to state agencies, public universities, or other government entities. A law may require a contractor to certify that it is not participating in a covered boycott. If a company declines to sign, it may lose eligibility for a contract or have to challenge the requirement.

Some statutes apply only when a contract exceeds a specified value, lasts a certain length of time, or involves a company with a minimum number of employees. Other laws exclude individuals, small businesses, sole proprietors, or contractors with limited state business. The exact thresholds differ, so a certification should not be treated as a universal rule across states.

Public pension funds and state investments

Some measures direct public investment boards to identify companies that boycott Israel and restrict or end investments in them. These rules can affect companies that receive public pension or state-fund investment, even if they are not bidding on a state contract. Their practical impact depends on the state’s investment authority, how the law defines a boycott, and whether a company is actually placed on a covered list.

Private individuals and organizations

For most residents, a personal choice not to buy a product is not itself the kind of conduct targeted by a public-contract certification. State laws generally focus on government relationships rather than punishing an individual consumer for making a private purchase decision. However, a person or organization could encounter a contract condition when seeking public funding or services, depending on the law and the transaction.

What Does the First Amendment Say?

The constitutional issue is whether a boycott is protected political expression and, if so, when a government may condition public benefits or contracts on a person’s speech or conduct. The Supreme Court addressed political boycotts in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982). It held that a civil-rights boycott involving political expression and collective advocacy was protected by the First Amendment, while recognizing that violence and other unlawful conduct are not shielded.

That decision is important, but it did not decide the constitutionality of every modern state law concerning boycotts of Israel. Later cases have reached different outcomes at different stages. In Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld Arkansas’s law as applied to a newspaper’s advertising contract after the statute was amended to limit the certification requirement. In 2022, the Supreme Court declined to hear the newspaper’s appeal. Declining review was not a nationwide ruling that all anti-BDS laws are constitutional.

Courts may distinguish between punishing political expression and setting conditions for a government contract. They may also examine whether a law targets protected speech, how broadly it defines a boycott, and whether its requirements are sufficiently clear. The result can depend on the wording, the facts, and the jurisdiction.

For background, readers can consult the Supreme Court’s opinion in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. and the Eighth Circuit decision in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip. Court opinions are more reliable than broad claims that a law has been either universally upheld or universally struck down.

Why Do States Pass These Laws?

Supporters generally describe the measures as a way to oppose discrimination against Israel and to set investment or procurement standards for public funds. Some argue that state governments may decide which companies receive public contracts, just as they impose other eligibility requirements, provided those requirements comply with the Constitution.

Opponents argue that boycotts can be a form of political expression and that forcing a contractor to affirm or renounce a political position may burden speech. Civil-liberties groups have also raised concerns about vague definitions, potential effects on advocacy organizations, and the risk that a company’s ordinary purchasing or investment decisions could be treated as political conduct.

The distinction between commercial conduct and political expression is often central. A company may make a routine business decision for price, supply, or risk reasons. A different situation may involve coordinated refusal to do business as a way to express a political view. How a particular statute treats those circumstances depends on its text and the relevant legal interpretation.

How to Check Whether a State Rule Applies

Before making a decision about a public contract, investment, or certification, a business or organization can take several practical steps:

• Identify the exact government relationship. Determine whether the issue involves a state agency contract, a local government, a public university, a pension investment, or another public program.
• Read the current law and procurement documents. Check the statute, agency rules, solicitation, contract language, and any required certification. A summary may omit important exceptions.
• Check the definition and thresholds. Confirm what conduct counts as a boycott and whether contract value, duration, employee count, or business type affects coverage.
• Look for court decisions or agency guidance. A law’s text may not reveal whether a provision has been enjoined, narrowed, or interpreted in a way that changes its application.
• Get qualified legal advice. A lawyer familiar with the state’s procurement and constitutional law can assess the specific facts and help avoid inaccurate or incomplete certifications.

Organizations should also distinguish between a government certification and a general public statement. Signing a certification can create contractual consequences, while a private political position may raise different legal questions. No single answer fits every state or transaction.

Common Misunderstandings About Boycotting Israel Laws

• “It is illegal to boycott Israel anywhere in the U.S.” Incorrect. There is no general nationwide ban on private consumer boycotts. State measures typically focus on particular public contracts, investments, or government relationships.
• “Every state with a law criminalizes boycotts.” Usually incorrect. Many measures use contract eligibility or investment restrictions rather than criminal penalties for private conduct.
• “The Supreme Court approved all state laws.” Incorrect. The Supreme Court declined to review one Arkansas case; that did not settle the constitutionality of every state measure.
• “Any company that avoids Israeli products violates a state law.” Not necessarily. Coverage turns on the law’s definition, the company’s relationship with the state, and any exceptions or court rulings.

Bottom Line for U.S. Residents and Businesses

Some states restrict certain government contracts or public investments involving companies that boycott Israel. Those rules can have real consequences for businesses seeking public work, but they do not amount to a uniform nationwide prohibition on personal boycotts. The First Amendment protects political expression, and courts continue to assess how that protection applies to specific state requirements.

The most accurate answer to “Are there states where it’s illegal to boycott Israel?” is therefore: some states impose conditions or restrictions in defined public-sector settings, but private boycotts are not categorically illegal throughout the United States. The controlling details are the state, the current law, the nature of the boycott, and the government relationship involved.