Skip to main content

Anti-BDS State Contractor Laws

  • Level: State (enacted by 38 states as of 2024, via legislation or executive order)
  • Time range: 2015–2026; first major law: Illinois, 2015; accelerating wave 2016–2022
  • Common mechanism: Contractor certification requirements and/or public investment divestment mandates

What These Laws Do​

Anti-BDS state contractor laws condition government contracts or public funding on a pledge that the contractor, vendor, or recipient does not participate in any boycott of Israel (or, in some versions, Israeli settlements or companies doing business in the occupied territories). Common provisions:

  • Contractor certification — Vendors seeking state contracts above a dollar threshold must sign a certification stating they are not engaging in any boycott of Israel and will not do so during the contract period.
  • Investment fund divestment — Public pension funds and state investment vehicles are directed to avoid or divest from companies that are "boycotting" Israel.
  • Definition of boycott — Definitions vary; some laws cover only commercial boycotts, others extend to consumer choices, nonprofit grant decisions, and academic conference participation.
  • Scope creep — Florida SB 1678 (2025) extended the framework to artistic grant recipients and nonprofit public-funding streams, widening who must certify.

Why Critics Oppose Them​

  • First Amendment — political boycotts are protected speech. The Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) that politically motivated boycotts are protected under the First Amendment. Critics argue conditioning a public contract on a promise not to boycott coerces a political viewpoint as the price of doing business with the government.
  • Unconstitutional conditions doctrine — The government cannot require citizens to surrender a constitutional right (here, the right to engage in political boycotts) as a condition of receiving a public benefit.
  • Political viewpoint targeting — No comparable state law requires non-boycott certifications with respect to any other country. Critics argue these laws enforce a specific political position about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  • Overbroad definitions — Some laws are written broadly enough to cover actions that have nothing to do with commercial discrimination — such as a nonprofit's decision not to hold a conference in Israel or an individual freelancer declining to work on a project involving an Israeli company.
  • 8th Circuit (Arkansas) — Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip (upheld). The 8th Circuit held that the anti-boycott certification requirement does not implicate the First Amendment because it regulates commercial conduct, not political speech. SCOTUS declined review in 2022, preserving a circuit split.
  • 9th Circuit (Arizona) — An Arizona anti-BDS law was struck down in 2021 as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
  • 4th Circuit (Maryland) — A district court found Maryland's anti-BDS law unconstitutional; the state repealed the law before the 4th Circuit could rule.
  • SCOTUS has not resolved the circuit split — The 8th Circuit's holding stands in that circuit; other circuits remain divided or have not ruled definitively.

States With Anti-BDS Laws (Selected)​

Texas (HB 89, 2017), Arkansas (Act 710, 2017), Florida (multiple laws, expanded 2025), Illinois (first, 2015), New York, Georgia, Arizona (struck down), Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and more than a dozen others via executive order.

Key Votes to Screen​

For each state, search the state legislature's voting record for the specific anti-BDS bill. In most states these bills passed with broad bipartisan support; a NO vote is relatively rare and notable.

State legislators who voted YES conditioned their constituents' right to government contracts on an oath of political loyalty to a foreign country's policies — a pattern worth documenting regardless of one's views on Israel/Palestine.

Why This Matters for We The Citizens​

A politician who voted YES on an anti-BDS contractor law voted to make political speech — specifically peaceful economic protest — a disqualifying characteristic for doing business with the state. This is a direct free-speech screening criterion.

See also: State Bad Laws Overview | Anti-Boycott Israel Laws (BDS)

Last updated on