Abstract
In the wake of employees losing their jobs upon voicing their political opinions concerning Israel, Harvard and Columbia law students’ job offers being rescinded upon expressing support for Palestine, and the names and social media profiles of individuals who support Palestine being collected and listed on Canary Mission, such backlash may leave many Americans wondering what form of resistance to settler-colonialist apartheid is acceptable in the twenty-first century. Recently, the movement to collectively boycott brands like Starbucks, which sued its Worker’s Union for a tweet expressing support for Palestine; Disney, which donated money to Israel; and McDonald’s, where a location gave away free Happy Meals to IDF soldiers, have gained momentum on social media websites like TikTok and Instagram. Perhaps this trend garnered attention because it allows Americans who feel disheartened by what their tax dollars pay for in the Middle East to refuse to continue putting dollars in the pockets of corporations that either directly or indirectly support Israel.
However, boycotting Israel in the United States did not begin recently. Rather, the official Palestinian Boycott, Divest, Sanctions Movement (BDS) was formulated in 2005. The ability to boycott and resist oppression in a nonviolent manner is not available to everyone. As of October 2023, thirty-eight states have enacted anti-boycott legislation that restricts an individual’s ability to boycott Israel when they are a contractor acting in a contractual capacity.
This Note addresses how the BDS Movement has unfolded in the United States and has sparked litigation surrounding the issue of protected speech under the First Amendment. Part I provides an overview of the formation and purpose of the BDS Movement. Part II examines common anti-BDS statutory schemes. Part III discusses the reasoning in prominent First Amendment lawsuits challenging anti-BDS statutes. Finally, Part IV argues that it is important for the United States Supreme Court to review Arkansas Times v. Waldrip because it leaves open a pathway for policymakers to both restrict ordinary Americans’ ability to participate in some boycotts but not others and to restrict business owner’s practices and choices.
Recommended Citation
Agnes Bresee, The Consumer’s Choice to Boycott, 48 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 185 (2024).
Included in
Accounting Law Commons, Administrative Law Commons, Admiralty Commons, Agency Commons, Agriculture Law Commons, Air and Space Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Banking and Finance Law Commons, Bankruptcy Law Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Civil Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Common Law Commons, Communications Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Computer Law Commons, Conflict of Laws Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Construction Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Disability Law Commons, Disaster Law Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Education Law Commons, Elder Law Commons, Election Law Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Estates and Trusts Commons, European Law Commons, Evidence Commons, Family Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Gaming Law Commons, Government Contracts Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Housing Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons, Insurance Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Psychology Commons, Law and Race Commons, Law and Society Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, Legal Biography Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, Legal Writing and Research Commons, Legislation Commons, Litigation Commons, Marketing Law Commons, Medical Jurisprudence Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, Natural Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Nonprofit Organizations Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Organizations Law Commons, Other Law Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, Privacy Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Religion Law Commons, Retirement Security Law Commons, Rule of Law Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, Second Amendment Commons, Secured Transactions Commons, Securities Law Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons, Taxation-State and Local Commons, Taxation-Transnational Commons, Tax Law Commons, Torts Commons, Transnational Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, Water Law Commons, Workers' Compensation Law Commons
