In
Jordahl v. Brnovich, (D AZ, Sept. 27. 2018), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Arizona's statute requiring those contracting with the state to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. Plaintiff Mikkel Jordahl's law firm contracts with the county jail district to provide legal advice to inmates. Jordahl boycotts consumer goods and services from businesses that support "Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories." The court concluded that "Plaintiffs would at least be able to meet their burden of showing that the Certification Requirement is an unconstitutional condition on government contractors." The court said in part:
The Act thus encompasses and contemplates elements of expressive political conduct protected under the Constitution. As such, the Court finds it highly likely that Plaintiffs will be able to establish that “boycott,” as defined in the Arizona legislature, burdens expressive political activity protected under the First Amendment. The question then becomes whether the State has an adequate interest in restricting companies’ rights to engage in boycotts of Israel by conditioning their government contracts on a promise to refrain from such activity....
Here, the State has proffered two interests to justify the Certification Requirement: (1) an interest in regulating the State’s “commercial activity to align commerce in the State with the State’s policy objectives and values” and (2) an interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of national origin....
The legislative history of the Act calls these stated interests into doubt. The Act’s history instead suggests that the goal of the Act is to penalize the efforts of those engaged in political boycotts of Israel and those doing business in Israeli-occupied territories because such boycotts are not aligned with the State’s values.... If so, such an interest is constitutionally impermissible.
Payson Roundup reports on the decision.
