Facebook icon Twitter icon Forward icon

September-October 2016 Newsletter









Whether you celebrate the new year in the Jewish month of Tishrei, on January 1st, or on some other date, JLJS wishes you a wonderfully happy, healthy, prosperous New Year, a year in which we can experience the fulfillment of our hopes for peace, justice, and joy throughout the world.

We also send holiday greetings to all those who are celebrating the Biblical holiday of Sukkot (the "Feast of Tabernacles").

An Overview of this Issue

An Overview of this Issue

Please note:  You may navigate to different sections of this newsletter by clicking the topic listed in the MARGIN on left side of this first page. 


Please save this email, savor it when you have time to explore the issues at your leisure, and share it with your friends.

This newsletter begins by describing our upcoming programs and alerting you to the fact that videos of some of our most important past programs are available on our Facebook page.

In addition, the newsletter discusses issues such as:  (1) verbal and physical antisemitic events on college campuses (and even in public school grades K1-12 school), this newsletter addresses many other issues, including:  (2) recent antisemitic actions by the United Nations; (3) developments regarding BDS; (4) the espousal by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement of anti-Israel rhetoric;(5) a series of disturbing judicial decisions making it much more difficult  for the victims of terrorist attacks and their families to recover financial compensation; and (6) many other judicial decisions involving abortion rights, religious rights, and the intersection between secular and religious law. 

Of special note are:  (1) an op-ed essay by a JLJS Advisory Board member calling for readers to cause colleges to be invested in, rather than divested from, Israel by buying Israel bonds and donating them to the colleges of their choice; and (2) a letter by another JLJS Advisory Board member that identifies critical problems in an article (published in the journal of the Decalogue Society of Lawyers) that opposed legislative designed to curb the BDS Movement.

As always, this newsletter contains numerous links to the full texts of articles, legal decisions or videos.  Please enjoy the newsletter, forward it to your friends, and send us suggestions as to how to improve it.


Two major programs are at hand:

1.  NOVEMBER 1, 2016 (Tuesday): 

"Antisemitism in the Arab Word - An Obstacle to Arab-Israeli Peace," 11:30 am-1:30 pm, in room 241 at the DePaul University College of Law, 25 E. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL

This program features two major scholars, one a Jew and the other a Muslim: 

*  Professor Benny Morris (of Ben-Gurion University, currently visiting at Georgetown University); and

* Professor Salim Mansur (of the University of Western Ontario).

Admission is free, but registration is required.  For information about registration, please contact Lauren Esula at lesula@depaul.edu or 312-362-6274 - or register online by going HERE.

Description: All people of good will long for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.  Such a peace requires that the parties recognize each other's right to exist and should consist of a plan to move forward together with mutual respect.  Unfortunately, the reality, not adequately recognized in the West, is that the visceral hatred of Jews and Israelis is pervasively promoted throughout significant portions of the Arab world.  In fact, unlike the situation in much of the world where governments officially oppose antisemitism, many Arab governments throughout the Middle East actively promote antisemitic indoctrination through state-controlled news media, schools, and the like. The hatred of Jews thus fostered poisons the peace process.

This program, featuring renowned Jewish and Muslim scholars, is designed to identify and describe the problem and to explore possible ways of resolving it.  In so doing, the object of the program is to help make the prospect of peace more attainable.

This program is in no way intended to address relations between Arabs and Jews at the DePaul University College of Law or in Chicago. Indeed, the Jewish and Muslim student organizations at the DePaul University College of Law have co-sponsored and jointly participated in a number of important programs. Similarly, there has been importantly productive cooperation between Arab and Jewish organizations of jurists in Chicago.  Ironically, this positive local climate may have contributed to insensitivity regarding the extensive and often governmentally sponsored antisemitism elsewhere in the Arab world.  It is essential that the truth about antisemitism in other parts of the Arab world is appreciated, that the role it plays in obstructing peace is understood, and that attempts to find constructive solutions are undertaken.

2.  NOVEMBER 15, "Religious Freedom Throughout the World," by The Honorable David Saperstein, the United States Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.

This lunchtime program will be held in Room 8005 of the DePaul Center, One E. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL.

Ambassador Saperstein, who is a principal advisor to the president and secretary of state and serves as the United States’ chief diplomat on issues of religious freedom worldwide, will speak on the work to promote religious freedom around the world and to fight religious persecution, discrimination, and genocide by groups like ISIS.

Admission is free, but registration is required.  For information about registration, please contact Lauren Esula at lesula@depaul.edu or 312-362-6274.


A.  General Developments at Campus:

As discussed in some more detail, below, antisemitism continues to be expressed in diverse ways on many campuses. For example:  

*  Some colleges are offering courses or other programming that promote antisemitic tropes and misrepresentations;

*  Faculty at a number of campuses continue to promulgate antisemitic lies;

* Swastikas and other antisemitic vandalism continues to appear on campus; and

* Jewish students are being targeted for the most vulgar antisemitic abuse. 

The following articles (click on them) are of general interest:

Canary Mission identifies more radical faculty on campus 

* Violence against Jews surges on college campuses

* Jewish students are the single largest target on campus of the systematic suppression of civil rights 

* Antisemitism is taking new forms on campus

The Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis University just released a new report in October 2016 entitled, Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Hostility on US Campuses."  The full report can be found HERE. The technical appendices to the report can be found HERE.  An article summarizing the report can be found HERE.  That article sets forth the "KEY FINDINGS" as follows:

In terms of the variation in antisemitism and anti-Israel hostility across campuses:

CUNY-Brooklyn, Northwestern, and many of the schools in the University of California system, are “hotspots” where the majority of Jewish students perceive a hostile environment toward Israel, and over one quarter perceive a general environment of hostility toward Jews on their campus. On these campuses it appears that the high rates of antisemitic harassment and hostility are largely driven by hostility toward Israel.

At Wisconsin, Rutgers, and Illinois, hostility toward Jews and antisemitic harassment are relatively high but do not seem to be highly connected to criticism of Israel. At these schools, more traditional antisemitic stereotypes and tropes, rather than criticism of Israel’s politics, seem to be driving the perceived hostility toward Jews.

There are many schools where antisemitism and hostility to Israel are negligible. Respondents at several large private universities, including U of Miami, Wash U, and Syracuse perceive very little hostility toward Israel, and virtually all of these respondents disagree that there is a hostile environment toward Jews.

One of the strongest predictors of perceiving a hostile climate toward Israel and Jews is the presence of an active Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) group on campus.

In terms of the relationship between hostile environments and students’ connection to Israel, the study found that:

Even when they experience antisemitism and hostility toward Israel, students' connection to Israel remain strong. Neither the presence of an SJP group on campus nor being on a campus which is generally perceived as having a hostile environment toward Israel are related to the strength of students’ connection to Israel.
The most Jewishly engaged students, including those who were more closely connected to Israel, are the most likely to perceive hostility toward Jews and Israel on their campus.
Connection to Israel notwithstanding, students often feel silenced in debates about this topic.

On many campuses more than one third of Jewish students feel at least a little uncomfortable expressing their opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Discomfort discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due to the hostility of the discourse occurs more frequently on campuses that are notable for pervasive perceptions of anti-Israel sentiment, including CUNY-Brooklyn, NYU, and the UC campuses.

Regardless of which school students attend, and how much anti-Israel sentiment they perceive, a significant minority of Jewish undergraduates are uncomfortable expressing their opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because they feel they do not know enough to enter the conversation.


B.  Events at Specific Colleges:

Unfortunately, there have been disturbing developments on numerous U.S. campuses.  We will briefly describe events on some campuses, below, in alphabetical order. However, to check as to incidents at any particular campus, including at any of a large number of colleges not mentioned below, go HERE.  

1.  City University of New York (CUNY)

The CUNY system comprises a number of New York colleges and is the nation's largest institution of higher education.  Past editions of this newsletter (see, e.g., the May 2016 edition, available HERE) have provided considerable information regarding numerous, serious antisemitic activities on many of those campuses, directed against Jewish students and faculty.  

Retired federal judge Barbara Jones and former prosecutor Paul Shechtman were tasked with investigating these events at CUNY.  In September 2016, they published a 24-page report summarizing the results of that investigation. In an article in TABLET (see HERE), K.C. Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, discusses this report. In part, Johnson writes:

The report made two principal findings. First, it clarified (there had been some debate about the incidents) the anti-Semitic conduct by some CUNY students. A November 2015 rally at Hunter College co-sponsored by the faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), drew support from a variety of identity-politics student groups, including the Students for Justice in Palestine. Encountering a small group of pro-Israel students, protesters shouted “Jews Out of CUNY” and “Death to Jews”; one CUNY student told Jones and her staffers that “as he was leaving the rally, a person behind him said, ‘We should drag the Zionist down the street.’ ” He had to ask CUNY security officers for protection. Jones and Schectman made it clear that if CUNY could identify any of the protesting students, they should be punished for issuing verbal threats.

The report also took note of a completed investigation at Brooklyn College. In February 2016, a group of students interrupted a meeting of the faculty council to issue a series of demands relating to diversity preferences, tuition, and other such matters. As at the Hunter rally, the discourse soon turned anti-Semitic, and the students shouted “Zionist” or “Zionist Jew” at the council chairperson, who is Jewish. As Jones and Shechtman observed, with significant understatement, “to conclude that ‘Zionist’ was a code word for ‘Jew’ is no stretch” in the incident. Four students eventually were punished for disrupting a closed faculty meeting in violation of college rules, an outcome that the report authors endorsed.



a.  Professor Joy Korega:  Joy Korega is a professor of rhetoric and composition at Oberlin.  She allegedly made a number of highly antisemitic statements on Facebook.  An Article in Inside Education reports, in part:

In 2014-15, after she came to Oberlin, Karega wrote on her Facebook page that ISIS was really U.S. and Israeli intelligence personnel, and that they -- not terrorists -- had planned the attacks on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo. She said Israel had downed Malaysian Airlines flight No. 17 over Ukraine, and she voiced support for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s declaration that Zionists and Israeli Jews were behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

Karega also shared anti-Semitic images, such as a picture of the Jewish banking heir Jacob Rothschild with the words, “We own your news, the media, your oil and your government.”


When these statements were brought to the attention of Oberlin's president earlier this year, he responded by asserting that; although he found the statements very hurtful, he believed strongly in academic freedom and free speech.

However, a week or so later, Oberlin's Board of Trustees weighed in:

[T]he trustees announced that they’d asked the college to look into Karega’s professional fitness. “These postings are anti-Semitic and abhorrent,” Clyde S. McGregor, chair of Oberlin’s Board of Trustees, said. “We deplore anti-Semitism and all other forms of bigotry. They have no place at Oberlin. These grave issues must be considered expeditiously.”

In  addition, a majority of the Oberlin faculty issued a statement condemning her statements as antisemitic, saying:

“Bigotry has no place on the Oberlin campus (or anywhere).  It sullies the values of equality and mutual support that are embedded in our institutional DNA as the first coeducational college and the first to admit students of all races as a matter of policy. … The time has finally come for us to go on record, and especially to reassure our students.”


Subsequently, Korega was put on paid leave pending an administrative investigation.

b.  Bigger Problem at Oberlin:  Many people claim that the antisemitic problem at Oberlin is much larger than the case of Joy Korega.  See HERE.

When an Oberlin alumni group concerned about antisemitism at Oberlin scheduled a symposium - with "All invited" - entitled “Building a Hate-Free Campus Through Civil Discourse."  The Oberlin Student Senate responded by condemning the Alumni group for doing so!  See HERE.  



Several recent antisemitic acts, including the posting of a swastika on a bathroom door in the college library has deeply affected many Jewish students.

See HERE for an open "Letter to a Jewish Freshman" published by Jamie Starr, a co-president of Kehillah, a Jewish student organization at Swarthmore.

For more information about these incidents see, e.g.HERE.



a. Disinviting an Israeli filmmaker:

An Israeli filmmaker was invited to show one of his films at a Conference at Syracuse University. The film addressed the influence of Israeli "settlers" on disputed lands.  A faculty member involved in issuing the invitation then rescinded it, because other faculty were concerned that showing it would provoke protests by student groups at Syracuse that support the BDS Movement (i.e., the movement calling for a boycott of, disinvestment from, and sanctioning of Israel).


After rescission of the invitation became public knowledge, causing Syracuse considerable embarrassment - and also after it became known that the film was somewhat critical of the settlers - the invitation was reissued.

b. Faculty Opposition to co-hosting events with Israeli academic institutions:

Pro-BDS faculty at Syracuse have reiterated their opposition to co-hosting events with Israeli academic institutions.  See HERE.


5.  UCLA:

At least two very different, but each extremely serious, claims of antisemitism have arisen at UCLA.

a.  Milan Chatterjee, a second-year law student, was president of the UCLA Graduate Student Association.  Learning that Students for Justice in Palestine wanted the Student Association to become a player on behalf of their BDS efforts against Israel, Chatterjee tried to maintain the Student Association’s neutrality.  The result was a vicious personal campaign against Chatterrjee, a campaign that – over concerns for his safety – drove Chatterjee to transfer out of UCLA’s law school.  See HERE and HERE.

b.  Even more recently, it was announced that UCLA-Berkeley was going to offer an anti-Israel course entitled “"Palestine: A Settler Colonial Analysis.”  The faculty advisor for this student-lead course was Hatem Bazian.   Bazian was a co-founder of Students for Justice in Palestine, a pro-BDS group many of whose members engage in hate speech against Israel and Jews.  Bazian is well known for his public calls for an intifada in the United States.  See HERE. An article discussing Bazian can be found HERE

After criticism about tendentious nature of the course, UCLA-Berkeley announced that the course would not be offered, in part, at least, because the student who would be running the course had not followed required procedures.  See HERE.

However, most recently, UCLA-Berkeley has flip-flopped and announced that the course will be offered.  See HERE.


A report by Canary Mission revealed a “cesspool” of antisemitic and racist behavior by current and recent students at the University of Tennessee.  See HERE. 

After University officials downplayed the report, further it was revealed that the prior report was only the “tip of the iceberg.”  See HERE.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) issued a call for the University to investigate and respond to these incidents much more aggressively.  See HERE:

LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus commented, “The University of Tennessee needs to take these incidents seriously, to investigate fully, and to respond with greater firmness and resolve than we have seen so far. University administrators would also be wise to view this situation as an opportunity to raise public awareness within their community about the persistence of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry."

Sources have reported that nearly 100 anti-Semitic, racist, bigoted, or threatening posts were found on the social media accounts of current UTK students and recent graduates. The postings include a mixture of inciting violence against Jews and Israelis; displaying anti-Semitic, homophobic, and racist sentiment; and praising Hitler, endorsing terrorist organizations, and endorsing terror. The Twitter messages, as reported by the Algemeiner, included statements such as, “Hitler had alot [sic] of great ideas. We need a guy like that in the White House”; “…I already hate you. You dirty filthy Jew. All your people do is f***ed s*** up. Wish hitler [sic] was still around to show you guys”; and “’@PalAnonymous Today marks the 26th anniversary of the First #Intifada #Palestine.’ About time for another one…”


By a vote of 24-6 (with 26 abstentions), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO) preliminarily passed a resolution that denies the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.  The only countries to vote against the resolution were Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States See HERE. 

Michael Worbs, the Chair of UNESCO’s Executive Board, stated on Israeli television that he was “sorry” for the vote.  See HERE.  Similarly, UNESCO’s Director-General Irinia Bokova criticized the action.  See HERE.  Leading United States Christians have criticized the UNESCO resolution, saying that denial of Jewish ties to the Temple Mount also denies Jerusalem’s Christian past as well. See HEREIn the last few days, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) has inundated the United Nations with emails protesting passage of this resolution.  See HERE.   Because of this resolution, Israel has frozen its ties with UNESCO.  See HERE.



Historically, early "blood libels" were false accusations that Jews had killed a non-Gentile and used the victim's blood for some ritual purpose.  Over time, the term "blood libel" was used more broadly to cover other defamatory statements. Some such statements, such as Abbas' recent lies in the United Nations claiming that Jews has poisoned Palestinian water wells, continue to falsely accuse Jews of murder.  Other statements falsely accuse Jews of different offenses.  The common element in these blood libels is that they are designed to increase antisemitism and antisemitic conduct.  Here a few recent examples of such blood libels.

a.  The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has defamed Israel, the world's only Jewish country, calling it an Apartheid State and accusing it of other wrongdoings. Far from being an Apartheid State, Israel is a multiracial, multireligious country run by a multiracial, multireligious government.  The fact that BLM has engaged in such false accusations has reluctantly led many who are quite sympathetic to the plight of blacks to criticize the movement.  They question how BLM can claim to promote social justice and oppose racism while engaging in antisemitsm.  See, e.g., HERE and HERE (criticism by Alan Dershowitz). Some criticize BLM for failing to recognize the early, historical and even contemporary involvement of Arab nations in the slave industry. See HERE.

b.  The BDS Movement claims that Israel is responsible for wrongful police shootings in the United States. See HERE.

c.  An ex-Congressman claims Israel, not ISIS, was behind the European massacres. See HERE.

d.  A German University course claims that Israel harvests the organs of Palestinians. See HERE.


JLJS needs your support.  We ask that you kindly consider making a generous tax-deductible donation to JLJS.  You may contribute in either of two ways:



(2) BY CHECK:  Please (a) make your check payable to "DePaul College of Law" and (b) write "JLJS" on the memo line.  Then mail it to:

Prof. Steven Resnicoff, Director
DePaul University College of Law
Center for Jewish Law & Judaic Studies (JLJS)
25 E. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 

JLJS also needs you to get more involved.  Please send your suggestions for future programs and your comments on past ones to sresnico@depaul.edu or lesula@depaul.edu.

And please use these same means to let us know if you are interested in becoming a member of the JLJS Advisory Board.

JLJS's Facebook Page

JLJS’s Facebook Page can be found HERE (You may need to sign in to Facebook in order to see it).  JLJS has recently uploaded videos of its recent programming.

In addition, JLJS regularly uploads to Facebook a variety of fascinating articles and videos.  In the past week or so, for example, uploaded items have included:
(1) links to videos of the presentations at our April 2016 program, “Awakening the World to the Persecution of Christians Throughout the Middle East;” (2) a link to a video of a major presentation by Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s former defense minister, delivered on September 19, 2016. The presentation, entitled, “An Inside Look at Israeli National Security Strategy,” and delivered at The Washington Institute, can be found
HERE. (3) a link to an inspiring pro-Israel video clip (and article) featuring Chloe Valdary, that can be found HERE.

Recent Legal Developments

Terrorism Cases
1.  Second Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Judgment for Terror Victims
Kirschenbaum, et al. v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties (July 20, 2016)
Plaintiffs were direct or indirect victims of terrorist acts linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”).  Plaintiffs held unsatisfied money judgments against Iran.  Plaintiffs maintained that they had the right to enforce those judgments against defendants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company (collectively, the “Defendants”) under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA), 28 U.S. C. §1602 et seq., and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (“TRIA”), 28 U.S.C. §1610 note. 

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs.  That judgment turned over to the plaintiffs certain property owned by the Defendants.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed for two reasons.  First, it found that the Defendants were not foreign sovereigns nor agencies or instrumentalities thereof under FSIA.  Second, although the Court of Appeals said that the Defendants might be agencies or instrumentalities of a declared terrorist entity under TRIA, there were material questions of fact that precluded an award of summary judgment.

2. D.C. Circuit Denies Terror Victims’ Claims to Foreign Internet Domains
Plaintiffs, victims and family members of victims of terrorist attacks held unsatisfied judgments against defendants Islamic Republic of Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) arising out of claims brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).  Plaintiffs attempted to attach Internet data managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia held that, under D.C. law, it was not possible to attach such Internet data. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, but on other grounds. 

Specifically, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that under FSIA the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied with only three exceptions:  a terrorist activity exception, a commercial activity exception, and an exception under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (“TRIA”).  To prevail based on one of these exceptions, the moving party must specifically assert it both in the Federal District Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals found that some of the plaintiffs had forfeited reliance on all three of the exceptions.

The Court found that, at least as to several of the judgments, some plaintiffs had not forfeited their rights to preserve the terrorist exception.  Nevertheless, relying on that part of FSIA that provides protections to the rights of third parties (i.e., parties such as ICANN, it affirmed the District Court’s ruling.

See Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran (D.C. Circuit August 2, 2016) HERE

See also HERE

3. Twitter Held Not Liable for ISIS Content on its Site
In Tamara Fields v. Twitter, Inc. (N.D.Cal.), Twitter was sued for allowing content on its site that allegedly incited an ISIS-sympathizing gunman to kill two people. The Federal District Court for the Northern District of California found that the Communications Decency Act protected providers of interactive computer services, such as Twitter, from liability for content uploaded by third parties.


Antisemitism Cases
1.  Canadian Jewish Group Sues Canadian College and Student Government Organization in Ontario Human Rights Council
Robert Walker, National Director of Hasbara Fellowships Canada is suing the Student Association and Faculty Association of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.  The suit seeks $50,000 in damages.


2. Jewish Woman Sues Dallas County for Discrimination
A Jewish woman is suing Dallas County for religious discrimination.  She says that she was offered a job in data management at the Resource Development Division of the sheriff’s office.  However, when she requested that she be permitted to leave on Fridays before sundown, she says that the request was met with “disbelief and confusion,” and the job offer was rescinded.

She alleges that she suggested several ways in which she could make up the time, but that the suggestions were rejected out of hand.  She is suing for between $100,000 and $1,000,000 in damages.

3. Rescinding Employee’s Termination Eliminated Adverse Job Action Suit
A former employee of Congregation Shearith Israel of the City of New York, the Spanish Portuguese Synagogue, sued the Congregation (and some individuals at the Congregation), alleging that her job position had been eliminated as a pretext for illegally firing her because she had been pregnant at the time of her marriage.  She alleged that this termination violated her rights under various federal and state statutes.

The Congregation alleges that it rescinded her termination before the last day of her employment and reinstated her “under the same terms and conditions of employment [she] previously enjoyed.”  Consequently, the Congregation held that the plaintiff did not have a cause of action based on the alleged job termination. The Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed with the Congregation, citing similar holdings by courts in several jurisdictions. 

Although the plaintiff had also alleged causes of actions based on other grounds, the court found them to be wanting.

See the opinion HERE.

4. New Jersey Court Upholds Religiously Discriminatory Disinheritance
When Kenneth Jameson’s daughter was in college, she began a romantic relationship with Marc Wolin, a Jew whom she later married.  Jameson, a Catholic, strongly objected to his daughter’s dating Wolin because he was Jewish.  He amended his will to disinherit her.

In re the Estate of Kenneth E. Jameson (NJ App. Aug. 12, 2016)

5. Brazilian Jews prevail against Gilson Gondim, a columnist for the Jornal da Paraiba, a local Brazilian newspaper.  

In a 2006 column about IDF retaliation against Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two IDF soldiers, Gondim referred to Israel as a “Nazi state.”  An umbrella Jewish organization in Brazil, the Sao Paulo Jewish Federation, launched a campaign to complain about Gondim’s antisemitism.  As a result, Gondim was fired by his newspaper.  In 2007, Gondim filed suit against the organization, alleging that it has “gagged him.”  Gondim lost in the lower court, lost on appeal, and was denied an opportunity for a new appeal. 


Miscellaneous Religious Discrimination Cases
1.   Catholic High School Fires Employee for Entering Same-Sex Marriage

On August 22, 2016, a New Jersey trial court denied a motion for summary judgment brought by a Catholic high school sued by its former dean of guidance.  The plaintiff had been fired after entering a same-sex marriage.  The school relied on its collective bargaining contract that authorized for-cause termination of a tenured teacher for “violating accepted standards of Catholic morality as to cause public scandal.”  The plaintiff alleges that the school’s own policy bars discrimination against her on the basis of marital status and that her termination also violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  The court held that further discovery was necessary in order to determine:  (1) whether the plaintiff’s status triggered the “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws, and (2) whether the dispute was secular or ecclesiastical.  The order in the case, Drumgoogle v. Paramus Catholic High school (NJ Super., Aug. 22, 2016), can be found

2. EEOC Files Suit Alleging Discrimination against Muslim Employee
The EEOC filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against KASKO, at St. Louis-based company. According to the lawsuit, Latifa Sidiqi had worked for KASKO since 2008.  When she began practicing Islam more seriously, a supervisor and others allegedly began making derogatory remarks about her fasting during Ramadan, wearing a hijab and her native country, Afghanistan. The complaint alleges that Sidiqi was fired during Ramadan 2013 when she complained about her supervisor’s discriminatory treatment.

3. “Ministerial Exception” Bars ADA Claim by Music Teacher
On August 15, 2016, the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Maryland held that the “ministerial exception” prevented a terminated music teacher at a Seventh Day Adventist school from suing the school under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.  In the case, Curl v. Beltsville Adventist School (D MD, Aug. 15, 2016) – see
HERE – the teacher was terminated when, after she was seriously injured in a fall at work, she was unable to fully resume her duties after a number of months.  The court held that the ministerial exception applied in part because plaintiff’s responsibilities included teaching religious music and leading prayer services and her spiritual leadership was one of the criteria on which her job performance was evaluated.

4. Federal District Court in Illinois Says Title VII Does Not Apply to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
Matavka v. Board of Education of J. Sterling Morton High School District 201 (N.D. Ill. 2016, Aug. 1, 2016), involved a Title VII complaint by a former school employee who had alleged severe anti-gay harassment.  The Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, relying on the recent (July 28, 2016) Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Comt. Coll., dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Title VII does not apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

For the Matavka opinion, see HERE.  For the Hively decision, see HERE. For a discussion of the Matavaka opinion in the Cook County Record, see HERE.

Conversion Therapy Issues
1. Pastors Challenge Illinois Statute as Applied to Them

In Pastors Protecting Youth v. Madigan (ND IL., filed 8/11/2016) - see the complaint
HERE -  a group of pastors challenge application to them of the Illinois ban on sexual orientation change therapy.  Section 25 of that statute states that no person in the conduct of any trade or commerce may offer conversion therapy services by stating that homosexuality is a mental disease, disorder, or illness. The pastors seek a declaratory judgment that Section 25 does not apply to them because they are not engaged in any “trade or commerce.”  In addition, they allege that the provision violates their free speech, free exercise of religion and due process of rights as well as the rights of the people whom they counsel.

2. Challenge to California Law Dismissed
In Pickup v. Brown (ED CA, Aug 9, 2016) the Federal District Court for the East District of California, dismissed an amended complaint challenging “as applied” to them California’s prohibition on health professionals providing sexual conversion therapy.  California courts had previously rejected litigation challenging the statute on its face.

3. Seattle, Washington, Adopts Ban on Sexual Conversion Therapy to a Minor
On August 3, 2016, the Seattle, Washington, City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting licensed medical or mental health professionals from providing sexual conversion therapy.  For the full text of the ordinance, see

About Israel
1. The Palestinian Authority announced that it is going to sue Britain over the Balfour Declaration of 1917. 

The Mandate for Palestine was a legal document unanimously adopted by the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations.  The Mandate for Palestine provided for the creation of a national home for the Jewish People in their historic homeland in the Middle East.  The League of Nations also allocated much larger tracts of land in the Middle East for the creation of future Arab states under other Mandates. The Balfour Declaration was an expression of intent by the British Government to implement the Mandate for Palestine. 

The Palestinian Authority announced that it was going to sue Britain over the Balfour Declaration, a rather preposterous statement. 

See HERE and HERE.

2. On August 8, 2016, Grant Smith, director of the Institute for Research:  Middle Eastern Policy, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.  The suit, Smith v. U.S.A., alleges that the United States’ provision of foreign aid to Israel is in violation of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, passed in 1976, that allegedly precludes aid to a country that has not ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  Smith said that this lawsuit has been 10 years in the making.

See, e.g., HERE and HERE 

Religious Discrimination Cases
1. U.S. v. Sterling, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (8/10/2016)
A special court-martial convicted Sterling, a Lance Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, for one specification of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, one specification of disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO).

Sterling appealed the court-martial decision asserting that it violated the federal statute entitled, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). The Court of Appeals held that RFRA did apply in the military context. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision below, concluding that RFRA did not apply in the facts of the case. The alleged exercise of religion in this case was Sterling’s posting of the printed words, “[n]o weapon formed against me shall prosper” at a shared workplace. Sterling had been ordered to remove the posting, and she refused to do so. Sterling did not inform the person who gave the order that the words had any religious significance to her. The court held that, in the context of the already contentious relationship Sterling had with her superiors, the posting could have merely been construed as combative in tone.  In fact, the religious connotation of the words was not raised until mid-trial.  This fact led the Court of Appeals to find that Sterling had failed to show that the orders to remove the posting “constituted a substantial burden on her exercise of religion” so as to make out a prima facie case under RFRA.

Judge Ohlson issued a vehement dissent, saying, in part:

“Unfortunately, instead of remanding this case so that it can be properly adjudicated by the court below, the majority instead has chosen to impose a stringent, judicially made legal standard in this and future religious liberty cases that is not supported by the provisions of RFRA.  Contrary to the majority’s holding, the plain language of the statute does not empower judges to curtail various manifestations of sincere religious belief simply by arbitrarily deciding that a certain act was not ‘important’ to the believer’s exercise of religion.  Neither does the statute empower judges to require a believer to ask of the government, ‘Mother, may I?’ before engaging in sincere religious conduct.  And further, nowhere in the statute are service members required to inform the government of the religious nature of their conduct at the time they engage in it.”

2. Islamic Flight Attendant Sues for Religious Discrimination
An Islamic flight attendant filed a federal lawsuit against ExpressJet Airlines for revoking a religious accommodation and suspending her from her job. The flight attendant, Charee Stanley, converted to Islam at some point after she was hired by ExpressJet Airlines (ExpressJet).  She said that the drinking of 
alcoholic beverages was sinful and that, because of her religious beliefs, she refused to serve such beverages to passengers.  Initially, ExpressJet allowed Stanley to pour the non-alcoholic beverages while having the other flight attendant deal with the alcoholic beverages.  When a flight attendant paired with Stanley objected to this arrangement, ExpressJet revoked it.  When Stanley refused to serve alcoholic beverages, she was suspended from her position.

See HERE (8/9/2016).

3.  Alleged Discriminatory Use of Religious Accommodations
On August 30, 2016, the ACLU filed suit, in Allen v. English (MD AL.), alleging that officials in Lee County, Alabama, were discriminatorily applying the state’s religious accommodation provision allowing head coverings in license photos. The complaint alleges that Yvonne Allen is a devout Christian who, for religious reasons, covers her hair with a headscarf.  When she asked to wear the scarf during her license photos, she was told that the accommodation was only for Muslims.  For the full text of the complaint, see

International Law – Fight Against Terrorism
Hamas often hides caches of rockets and other military “assets” in and around civilian residences.  In order to strike such targets with minimum loss of civilian life or property, Israel often provides various sorts of advance warnings to civilians to leave the affected areas. Gaza’s Interior Military has called upon residents to ignore these messages and to remain on and around the targeted properties. See
HERE (July 7, 2016).

Religious Law in American Courts
1. Minnesota Court Rejects Alleged Application of Shariah Law
A Minnesota Appellate Court rejected a party’s request to follow Sharia law in a case involving Muslim disputants.  Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi was a married taxi driver in Minnesota.  He was killed in a traffic accident, and his estate brought a wrongful death suit that resulted in a settlement of $183.000.  Both the decedent’s widow and the decedent’s brother claimed rights to this amount. The Minnesota trial court ruled that in this case, Minnesota law provided that the decedent’s widow should receive all of the proceeds.  The decedent’s brother argued that under Sharia law, he should receive a significant share of the funds. The Minnesota Appellate Court said that there was no applicable principle of Minnesota law called for the application of Sharia law.  See In re Ombabi, 2016 WL 4163311 (August 8, 2016)

See also HERE (August 9, 2016).

2. Kentucky Court:  No-Fault Divorce Law does not Violate Religious Rights of Hindu Husband
In Bhjandaru v. Vukkum (Ky App., August 19, 2016), a Hindu husband challenged the constitutionality of Kentucky’s no-fault divorce law.  In addition to finding that there was no violation of the husband’s First Amendment religious rights, the court rejected the contention that under the doctrine of comity it should have applied the Indian Hindu Marriage Act.

3. Minnesota Appeals Court Refuses to Dismiss Case over Ownership of Mosque
A Minnesota appeals court affirmed a trial court’s decision not to dismiss a dispute between tow non-profit corporations over ownership of Mosque property.  The court, in United Islamic ‘Society v. Masjed Abubakr Al-Seddig, Inc. (Aug. 29, 2016) said it was too early to determine whether the matter can be resolved by the application of neutral legal principles or whether it would require improper government entanglement with religion.

Transgender Law
For more information on the transgender law matters discussed below, as well as on older matters, see

1. British Supreme Court Punts Difficult Case to the European Court of Justice.
European Council Directive 79/7/EEC (Progressive Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Matters of Social Security) precludes a nation from requiring that, in addition to satisfying physical, social and psychological criteria for legal recognition of a change of gender, the person changing gender must also be unmarried.

Under British law, as permitted by the Directive, allows women to obtain a retirement pension at a younger age than men.  Nevertheless, in order to qualify to receive the pension at the earlier age, a transgender woman had to be unmarried.

The plaintiff in MB v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UK Sup. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016) was registered at birth as a male, but has lived as a female since 1991 and underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1995.  Nevertheless, plaintiff and her wife are married and intend to stay so. The plaintiff turned 60 on May 31, the age at which women qualify for a pension, in 2008 and applied for a state retirement pension.  Men qualify for a pension at age 65. The application was rejected and the suit ensued.  England’s Supreme Court, divided on how the Directive applies to this case, has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice.  See the EurActiv report on the case HERE.  

2. Bathroom, Locker room and Shower access:
On August 26, 2016, in Carcano v. McCrory, a Federal District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued an 83-page opinion  and  a preliminary injunction preventing  enforcement of a North Carolina statute on transgender bathroom access against two students and one employee of the University of North Carolina.  The statute limited transgender individuals to use school bathrooms, locker rooms and showers that correspond to their sex as listed on their birth certificate.  The court held that the law likely violated Title IX as interpreted by the U.S. Department of Education, that interpretation having been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  You can find the case
HERE and a useful discussion of the case HERE

3.  Provision of Gender Transition Services
On August 23, 2016, five states (Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Texas and Wisconsin), a religiously-affiliated hospital network and two medical associations filed suit in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging rules adopted in May by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHH) prohibiting discrimination by health facilities receiving federal financing assistance, among others, on the basis of gender identity in the delivery of medical services. See Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Burwell. The 79-page complaint alleges that the new rules violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion and due process, as well as their federal rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  It also alleges that the rules violate the plaintiff states’ rights in a number of ways.

In part, the complaint states:

On pain of significant financial liability, the Regulation forces doctors to perform controversial and sometimes harmful medical procedures ostensibly designed to permanently change an individual’s sex— including the sex of children. Under the new Regulation, a doctor must perform these procedures even when they are contrary to the doctor’s medical judgment and could result in significant, long-term medical harm. Thus, the Regulation represents a radical invasion of the federal bureaucracy into a doctor’s medical judgment....

The Regulation not only forces healthcare professionals to violate their medical judgment, it also forces them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs

4. Nationwide Federal Injunction Against Enforcement of New Title IX Rules
On August 21, 2016, a Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting the federal government from enforcing new Department of Education guidelines interpreting a federal regulation regarding Title IX.  The new guidelines prohibited schools from restricting the access of transgender students to bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers based on their biological gender. In a case brought by 13 states challenging the new federal guidelines, the court said, in part:

It cannot be disputed that the plain meaning of the term sex as used in § 106.33 when it was enacted by DOE following passage of Title IX  meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.... Additionally, it cannot reasonably be disputed that DOE complied with Congressional intent when drawing the distinctions in § 106.33 based on the biological differences between male and female students....

 For the full text see HERE. 

5. No Transgender Discrimination in Federal Government Buildings
On August 18, 2016, the General Services Administration (the “GSA”) published a Bulletin – see the text
HERE - that requires federal agencies in office space controlled by the GSA to make bathrooms accessible to people based on their gender identity.  The Bulletin said that its action was consistent with legal interpretations of the EEOC, ED, DOJ and OPM.

6. RFRA Protects Funeral Home from Gender Stereotyping Claim
On August 18, 2016, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provided a defense to a funeral home that had allegedly dismissed a transgender employee who was in the process of transitioning from male to female.  In an earlier opinion in this case, the court had ruled that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  Although the funeral home was a corporation, the court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby in allowing the funeral home to assert religious rights under RFRA.  Even if the government had a compelling state interest in preventing this type of discrimination, the court held that the government could have used a less restrictive means for accomplishing that objective, giving at least one example of such an alternative.

The case was allowed to continue on the EEOC’s theory that the employee was dismissed for failing to comply with the funeral home’s dress code for male employees. For the full text see HERE.

Miscellaneous RFRA cases
1. A number of cases arising under RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) are discussed elsewhere in this newsletter in connection with transgender law. 

2. RFRA Does Not Prevent Denial of Bankruptcy Discharge Based on a Subjectively Fraudulent Transfer
A debtor who, within one year of filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy, made a subjectively fraudulent transfer of assets to a church could be denied a bankruptcy discharge.  RFRA did not affect application of 11 U.S.C. 727.

See In re Crabtree, 2016 WL 4303558 (Bank.Mn. Aug. 8, 2016)


Anti-BDS Legislation by United States
States have continued to enact various types of resolutions and statutes targeting those who participate in a boycott against Israel.  An excellent articles describing this development is “Natalie Jacobs and Caline Chitayat, “Taking the ‘B’ Out of BDS – states aim to beat BDS at its own game,” See HERE.  Recently, the State of California has joined the list of states that adopted this type of legislation.  See HERE and HERE.

Antisemitic Activities on US Schools and Campuses Jewish student driven out of Manhattan’s Beacon High School
A Jewish high school student in New York was forced out of her high school by threats and other antisemitic bullying when she dared to say that “Religion in the extreme can cause violence and war. Just look at radical Islam.”  One student told her, “I’m going to rearrange your face” and many others sent texts expressing revulsion at her, demanding she apologize, and ending longtime friendships with her.  See HERE.

Another recent article describes how extensive litigation was required to redress blatant antisemitism in New York’s Pine Bush Central School District.  See HERE.

Antisemitic Activities in Schools in Foreign Countries
* France

Antisemitism in French public schools has increased to such an extent that Jewish students are being driven out of the public school system.  See HERE, HERE, and HERE.


Op-ed pieces published in the JLJS newsletter do not represent the official view of DePaul University or of any of its units.  They represent solely the views of their authors.  The two pieces included today were both authored by members of the JLJS Advisory Board.

1. Fight BDS by helping Colleges be INVESTED in Israel
by Orin Rotman, DePaul 
JD ’78

As one who is invested intellectually and sometimes financially in the De Paul University College of Law, and particularly in its Center for Jewish Law and Jewish Studies (JLJS), I am keenly aware of JLJS’s increased focus on combating the BDS Movement, a movement calling for boycotts against Israel, divestment from Israel, and the imposition of sanctions upon Israel. 

The BDS Movement is led (but certainly not completely composed of) by anti-Zionists as well as anti-Semitic elements.  JLJS has placed its principal emphasis on fighting BDS, seeking ways to publicize the movement’s insidious activities to the entire Chicago community, both Jewish and non-Jewish, and to blunt their invidious effects. 

Through its manifold educational programs and initiatives, JLJS strives to correct the record regarding reality in the Middle East and to support kindred efforts wherever they may be found.

A few weeks ago, I attended a large local community lecture featuring the Israeli UN Ambassador, Danny Danon. Ambassador Danon recently became the first Israeli ever democratically elected at the United Nations to the chairmanship of a permanent committee.  It was the UN Legal Committee. The ambassador's address was quite interesting, rallying and sometimes even provocative.  It touched in no small part on the problem of BDS, public relations and the hearts and minds of our Jewish community.  He referred extensively to the problem of BDS activities on campus.

One insight (as compared to BDS “incite”!) made that evening by several of the speakers preceding Ambassador Danon's speech was how to practically combat the BDS activities on campus with dollars rather than hollers. We were encouraged to INVEST, not divest. And particularly to invest in Israel through Israel Bonds and to use those Israel Bonds to make our financial voice known to our colleges and universities. 

Specifically, they urged us to participate in “Anti-BDS – Bonds Donated to Schools,” a program that is gaining momentum.  It asks friends of Israel to fight BDS on campus by making donations of Israel Bonds to the schools of their choice, whether it be their alma mater or an institution being attended by a family member. Because the University must hold the bonds until maturity, this precludes divestment by binding the school to Israel for a sustained period of time. It counters BDS on two levels: It is a personal means of rejecting anti-Israel activism on campus and, because proceeds from the purchase of the bonds help build every sector of Israel's economy, it is a direct repudiation of the BDS movement's goal of damaging the country financially.

As an early 60-something year old, I find myself inspecting my IRA portfolio on a more regular basis, and I am becoming keenly aware that my youthful reliance on high performing mutual funds just may need to be tempered with security as I contemplate actually having to draw on those funds in the future. Moving a significant portion of those mutual funds into 5 and 10 year Israel bonds will both advance my Anti-BDS activism and anchor my financial stability. I'm no financial wizard, but I'm thinking this is a good way to put my money where my mouth is.

I encourage everyone who reads this enlist in the Anti-BDS movement through participation in JLJS activities and by doing what each of us can do - with the cooperation of our minds, our mouths, our bodies and our wallets.


2. Letter To: Aviva Patton, Executive Director Decalogue Society, September 28, 2016

134 N. LaSalle, No. 1430
Chicago, IL 60602 

From: Robert B. Millner

I am writing in response to the article by Jonathan Lubin in the Fall 2016 Tablets, entitled "When Do Governmental Sanctions Against Companies That 'Boycott Israel' Stifle Our First Amendment Freedoms?"

Contrary to Mr. Lubin's presentation, the boycott Israel Movement ("BDS") is not aimed at legitimate goals like "promoting the equal treatment of Arab citizens of the State of Israel."  Its goal is the destruction of Israel, as anyone who has heard its signature rant, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea," will recognize.  Its strategies -- to delegitimize Israel, demonize Israel, apply double standards to its conduct -- are anti-Semitic under the standards applied by the United States government, as well as by major Jewish organizations. Thankfully, Professor Steven H. Resnicoff explains these points in more detail in his article "BDS and Its Harms," also in the Fall 2016 Tablets.

I am specifically writing to address an erroneous legal point in Mr. Lubin's article: his assertion that "included within the freedom of speech is the freedom to boycott." From this erroneous premise, Mr. Lubin posits a constitutional right to "boycott Israel, Israeli companies, or companies based out of illegal settlements."

Parenthetically, I should note, the United States government has never declared Jewish settlement beyond the green line (which would include the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and Hebrew University on Mt. Scopus) to be illegal or unlawful, although it does oppose continued settlement activity. Under the Oslo Accords, the settlement issue is to be negotiated with the Palestinian Authority, and the Clinton parameters for resolution at the Camp David and Taba negotiations put the major settlement blocks -- which hold the overwhelming bulk of all settlers -- and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, in sovereign Israeli boundaries.

As to boycotts and the First Amendment, the precedent Mr. Lubin relies on for his constitutional "freedom to boycott" is NAACP v. Clairborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (1982). However, Clairborne Hardware itself expressly recognizes that boycott activity can be curtailed or prohibited where it is directed to an unlawful goal. "The right of business entities to 'associate' to suppress competition may be curtailed. [Citation omitted.] Unfair trade practices may be restricted. Secondary boycotts and picketing by labor unions may be prohibited...." Clairborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 912.

In fact, the United States has long had in place anti-boycott laws to counteract participation by individuals and companies located in the U.S. (and their foreign affiliates) in the Arab League boycott of Israel. The 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act and the Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 prohibit, inter alia, refusal to do business with Israel or with blacklisted companies, and provide imposition of fines and imprisonment as punishment for violation.

Clairborne Hardware does not speak to legislation that curtails or penalizes refusals to do business based on national origin, like the anti-BDS legislation being passed in many states. Instead, Clairborne Hardware dealt with a boycott of white merchants in Clairborne County, Mississippi, instituted at a meeting of a local leaders of the NAACP, to secure compliance by civic and business leaders with federal law governing equality and racial justice. There was no federal or state statute that prohibited the boycott or otherwise protected racial discrimination. Instead, the theory on which the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld a damage verdict against the boycott leaders was a civil conspiracy theory, focusing on the group's concerted conduct consisting of speech, non-violent picketing and peaceful assembly.

The United States Supreme Court reversed because the rule enunciated by the Mississippi Supreme Court amounted to a complete prohibition on First Amendment protected conduct (speech and assembly) directed toward a lawful end, vindication of Fourteenth Amendment rights.  "Petitioners sought to vindicate rights of equality and of freedom that lie at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment itself.  The right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a non-violent, politically motived boycott to force governmental and economic changes and to effectuate rights guaranteed by the Constitution itself."  Clairborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 914.   "In this case [Clairborne Hardware], however petitioners' ultimate objectives were unquestionably legitimate. The charge of illegality -- like the claim of constitutional protection -- derives from the means employed by the participants to achieve those goals. The use of speeches, marches, and threats of social ostracism cannot provide the basis for a damages award." Clairborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 933.

Nothing in Clairborne Hardware limits the ability of a state to declare that companies which boycott based on national origin, including boycott of Israel, are disqualified from state business or pension investment.  None of the anti-BDS legislation proposed or adopted prohibits individuals or entities from assembling, speaking, or peacefully demonstrating against Israel or advocating against purchase of Israeli goods.  But entities that engage in an unlawful boycott are subject to the lawful consequences imposed by law.

The importance of anti-boycott laws directed t the BDS movement is that they declare policy.  In economic terms, the BDS movement has had practically no impact on Israel.  But it is important that the BDS movement be understood for what it is, an anti-Semitic movement aimed at the elimination of the
Jewish state. Statements of public policy, through enactment of laws, are extremely powerful in establishing public understanding.

JLJS Advisory Board

Advisory Board Chair:
Sheri Hokin

Advisory Board Co-Chair of Programming:
Mitchell Lipkin

Advisory Board Members:
Kenneth Anspach

Marc Bassewitz

Charles Bergen

Paula Kaplan Berger

Sarah Blenner

Marc N. Blumenthal

Brian Davis

Michael Dorfman

Stephen Durchslag

Larry Fleischer

John M. Geiringer

Andrew  Glatz

Melinda Jacobson

Bill Kanter

Robert D. Kreisman

Arnold Landis

Stephen Landes

David Levitt

Rabbi Leonard Matanky

Robert B. Millner

Alan E. Molotsky

Rabbi Michael Myers

Judge Michael Panter

Patti Ray

Rabbi Barry Robinson

Curtis Ross

Orin S. Rotman

Michael Rothmann

Matthew Rudolph

Joelle M. Shabat

Keith Shapiro

Arnold G. Siegel

Alan E. Sohn

Sheldon Stern

Steve Towbin

Paul H. Vishny

JLJS Academic Advisory Board

Harvey Abramowitz, Purdue University Calumet

William D. Adler, Northeastern Illinois University

Shlomo Argamon, Illinois Institute of Technology

Eliot Bartky, Indiana University- Purdue University Fort Wayne

Miriam Ben-Yoseph, DePaul University School for New Learning

Ellen Cannon, Northeastern Illinois University

Sherman Cohn, Georgetown Law

Amy Elman, Professor of Political Science, Kalamazoo College

Wiley Feinstein, Loyola University Chicago

Richard Herman, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Ken Krimstein, DePaul University

Jacob Lassner, Northwestern University

Phyllis Lassner, Northwestern University

Michael H. LeRoy, School of Labor & Employment Relations & College of Law University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Wayne Lewis, DePaul University College of Law

Charles Lipson, The University of Chicago

Arthur Lubin, Illinois Institute of Technology

Alan J. Malter, University of Illinois at Chicago

Cary R. Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, Northwestern University

Richard J. Ross, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Law and History

J. Samuel Tenenbaum, Northwestern University School of Law