Israel is one of Texas’s strongest partners in trade and investment in the Middle East. Under Texas law, contractors with 10 or more full-time employees are prohibited from boycotting Israel during the term of a Is Texas Israel Boycott Ban Unconstitutional? government contract worth $100,000 or more. In January 2022, a federal district court blocked the city of Houston from requiring an engineering firm to certify that it would not boycott Israel, ruling that such a requirement violated the First Amendment. The ruling was appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
In 2017, Texas passed a bill ,
prohibiting government entities from entering into contracts with any company (including individual businesses) that “boycotts Israel.” The term “boycott Israel” is broadly defined as “refusing to do business, ceasing business activity, or otherwise taking any action that penalizes, harms, or restricts commercial relations specifically with Israel or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territory.”[1]
The bill was one of dozens
passed by state legislatures in response to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement launched against Israel by Palestinian groups in 2005. In a 2017 press release, Governor Abbott stated that “anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally.”
Under Texas’ anti-BDS law,
A government contractor is required to certify that it (1) does not boycott Israel and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract. [2] The Comptroller is required to maintain and periodically update a public list of companies boycotting Israel. In 2019, we wrote about some of the early impacts of the anti-BDS law, including the government’s seizure of $72 million from a Norwegian financial service that was alleged to be boycotting Israel.
Email marketing regulations include GDPR on fax lists in Europe and CAN-SPAM in the US. You must obtain consent from recipients ‘ fax lists and provide an easy way to opt out of receiving future emails. If you want to cooperate with us and we provide fast work. You can also visit our website.
The law has faced its first significant challenge
legal challenge from Bahia Amavi, a speech therapist of Palestinian descent who has worked under contract with Pflugerville ISD for nine years. On April 25, 2019, a federal district court in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the law, ruling that Amavi would likely prevail on her claim that the anti-BDS law is an unconstitutional regulation of speech.[3]
Twelve days after the decision
The anti-BDS law was amended by a district court to exclude sole proprietorships and apply only to contracts worth $100,000 or more between a government agency and a company with 10 or more full-time employees. This amendment raised questions about Amavi, as she is a sole proprietor and no longer covered by the anti-BDS law. [4] The amended anti-BDS law now faces a new legal challenge, one that has met with early success. A&R Engineering and Testing Inc. sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the city of Houston after the city required the firm to swear that it does not and will not boycott Israel during the term of its contract.
January 2022 federal
A Texas district court has blocked a city from including a “boycott Israel” provision in A&R Engineering’s contract. [5] The court found that A&R Engineering has “First Amendment rights that would be violated if it were forced to sign a contract with the City of Houston in its current form that contains language that says ‘Anti-Boycott Israel’ (§ 2271.002).” The court was primarily concerned with a residual provision in the definition of “boycott Israel,” which includes “otherwise taking any action that punishes, economically harms, or restricts commercial dealings” with Israel or Israeli entities.
This formulation is “extremely broad
, the court said. “[A]cts intended to punish or economically harm Israel may include conduct protected by the First Amendment, such as giving speeches, nonviolently picketing Israeli businesses, posting leaflets, encouraging others to stop doing business with Israel or Israeli organizations, or sponsoring a protest that encourages local businesses to stop doing business with Israel… each of these actions falls within the protective shield of the First Amendment.” state, as DA&R Engineering sought, noting concerns about the lack of a developed record and the level of information.
Texas Attorney General Ken
Paxton has appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit, and the appeal will likely be heard before the Texas Legislature reconvenes in 2023. Regardless of the outcome of the A&R Engineering case, legislators are likely to reconsider the anti-BDS law a second time to keep it from facing further legal challenges.
California,[1] New York,[2] Virginia,[3] Vermont,[4] Colorado,[5] Delaware,[6] Illinois,[7] Oregon,[8] and the District of Columbia[9] have adopted state laws regulating subscription services. State laws are generally more specific than ROSCA.
Most state laws require merchants to allow consumers to cancel a subscription using the same method the consumer used to subscribe. For example, under the California Auto-Renewal Act, a merchant must provide an online termination method: (i) via a prominent direct link or button (which may be located in the customer’s account or profile) or in the device or user settings; or (ii) via a readily available termination email, formatted and provided by the company, that the consumer can send without additional information.
Texas does not regulate the process of canceling subscription services, but some lawmakers have expressed interest in doing so. During the 2021 regular legislative session, Texas Rep. Guerra filed HB 2259 , which would require subscription service providers to: (i) provide consumers with multiple ways to cancel a subscription; and (ii) allow consumers to cancel a subscription using the same method the consumer used to subscribe. “If a consumer can sign up for a subscription service online, they should be able to cancel their subscription online,” Rep. Guerra said during a House Bill Committee hearing. “I call that subscription parity.”
HB 2259 was left in committee after a hearing and did not pass. Similar bills were proposed in 2011 and 2009, but also failed to pass.