Pantysoaker / Republicans selective 1st amendment

In April 2019 a federal judge ruled that Texas's law, which required government contractors to certify that they would not boycott Israel, was unconstitutional on free-speech grounds. ((ACLU v. Texas), (2019))

“This is now the third time a federal court has blocked an anti-BDS law on First Amendment grounds,” said Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

"At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration and adherence," said U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman.

Federal courts in Arizona and Kansas also blocked similar state anti-boycott laws in First Amendment challenges brought by the ACLU and ACLU affiliates in the respective states. ((Jordahl v. Brnovich), (2018)), ((Esther Koontz v. Kansas), (2018)), ((Bahia Amawi v. Pflugerville), (2019))

The anti-BDS laws have been ruled unconstitutional in all states in federal districts five, nine, and ten.

The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that political boycotts are protected by the First Amendment, and other decisions have established that the government may not require individuals to sign a certification regarding their political expression in order to obtain employment, contracts, or other benefits.

United States district Judge Daniel Crabtree stated that Supreme Court rulings protect the Right to participate in a boycott “like the one punished by the Kansas law.”

Under Claiborne, Plaintiffs’ BDS boycotts are not only inherently expressive, but as a form of
expression on a public issue, rest on “the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”
(Claiborne, 458 U.S.) at 913 (quoting Carey, 447 U.S. 455, 467 (1980)).
 

It is improbable that any other states or federal districts could enforce these laws without experiencing a similar defeat due to the existent United States Supreme Court ruling. (Claiborne, 458 U.S.)