Marco Rubio and His Colleagues Need a Refresher on the First Amendment

This week, amid a partial government shutdown, senators tried to sneak through a bill that would encourage states to suppress constitutionally protected political boycotts of Israel.

Ultimately, the Combating BDS Act failed to make it to the Senate floor, largely because enough people exercised their First Amendment right to protest the bill and educate senators that they should get their priorities straight. But it seems that’s not the only education that is in order.

The recent spate of bills that seek to penalize Israel boycotts is a bipartisan problem. Many Senate Democrats blocked the Combating BDS Act this week, rightly arguing that Congress should end the government shutdown rather than making this the first order of business of the new session. But four Senate Democrats voted to pass the bill, and many others, including Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.), have expressed support for other anti-boycott efforts, even when they have come at the expense of our constitutional rights.

This week, however, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) led the charge, and even took to Twitter to spread a number of perplexing and often downright false statements about the First Amendment and the Combating BDS Act.

Here’s what Sen. Rubio got wrong:

Fiction: Local and state governments should be free to end contracts with companies that boycott Israel.

Senator Rubio suggested that not only should states be free to boycott the boycotters, they have the right to boycott them. That’s a troubling proposition, and one specifically prohibited under the Constitution.

First Amendment rights belong to the people, not the government. The government cannot impose its views on people or punish them for expressing views that the government disagrees with. This principle applies to both individuals and companies doing business with the state, and with full force to politically motivated boycotts. Two federal courts recently affirmed this, blocking laws in Arizona and Kansas that penalized individuals and companies for boycotting Israel. And this principle was famously tested in the McCarthy era, when many state laws required government employees to declare they were not members of the Communist Party or other “subversive groups” in order to keep their jobs.

The ACLU successfully challenged many of those laws on constitutional grounds — just as it’s now fighting unconstitutional state laws suppressing lawful boycotts of Israel — and anti-Communist loyalty tests have been mostly relegated to the dustbin of history. The same should happen to the laws requiring people to pledge not to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with the government.

Fiction: The Combating BDS Act ‘doesn’t punish any political activity.’

That’s what Sen. Rubio tweeted to his followers on January 7. Less than a day later, he tweeted that his bill “allows local & state govt’s to boycott the boycotters.” That, by definition, is state-sponsored punishment for a constitutionally protected activity, and it’s what the First Amendment seeks to protect people from.

Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), told The Washington Post that he prefers another bill, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, because, he argued, it seeks to address constitutional concerns about the Combating BDS Act. That’s also false. Both bills come from the same unconstitutional playbook and make a mockery of the First Amendment. In fact, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act takes it to another level, imposing criminal penalties of up to $1 million on individuals or companies boycotting Israel or any foreign country if the boycott were called for by international governmental organizations like the United Nations. Senators Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) similarly expressed concerns that the bill violated the First Amendment.

Fiction: Opposing anti-BDS laws is de facto support of BDS.

Not true. The ACLU doesn’t take a position on boycotts of Israel, but we have long defended the right to boycott, which is a proud part of America’s constitutional tradition and protected by the First Amendment. And we’re not the only ones. A number of members of Congress — many of whom who don’t take a position on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement or have even expressed opposition to it — have First Amendment concerns with the bill.

Whatever your views on BDS, we all should be able to agree that the government has no business telling us which causes we can or cannot support.

Marco Rubio and his colleagues may not agree with the BDS movement, and they have a First Amendment right to express that. But public officials cannot use the power of public office to punish views they don’t agree with. That’s the kind of authoritarian power our Constitution is meant to protect against.

Sign up for the ACLU’s Best Reads and get our finest content from the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday.

View comments (52)
Read the Terms of Use

Ms. Gloria Anasyrma

What does BDS stand for? The article does not explain that. I imagine it stand for a Big ___ ___.


Great writing! Rubio’s Florida voters should be concerned. If the 1st Amendment is not an individual right - but the exclusive right of a state - that same measuring stick could be applied to 2nd Amendment gun rights or property rights. Most of Rubio’s voters and most Americans like “individual” rights on the amendments they support.


We all know marco Rubio is tRump s sycophant. I don't understand, knowing that his family were Cuban refugees, how this man can look at himself in the bathroom mirror every morning


Easy like I do
Knowing I did the right thing today
I worked an honest day today
I have not belittled anyone today

Miguel Tamargo

It is strikingly hypocritical of legislators such as Rubio to propose these clear violations of free speech while at the same time promoting, as he has during his entire political career, an embargo on Cuba that has repeatedly been condemned by almost the entire international community.


Rubio doesn’t care about the Constitution. Anyone, ANYONE who voted for this should be censured and required to give FACUAL presentations in person, via email and social media, in their own name, admitting their perfidy.

Linda Houghton

Any Senator who willfully puts forth legislation that undermines Article One of the US Constitution is treading on a thin line of subversion. If he truly can not understand the First Amendment Rights as outline in the Constitution he is, perhaps unqualified to be a US Senator


I'm curious as to whether you're going to defend ALL Constitutional rights, and write a refresher on the application of fees prior to the exercise of a right so Democrats can stop trying to take us back to the 1960s with HR8.


The ACLU has zero credibility on the first Amendment given their willingness to destroy a bakers life for his unwillingness to bake a cake. Lets not forget this organizations total silence regarding the Supreme Court cause NILFA v. Becerra where the state of CA was threatening to fine pro-life pregnant centers for not advertising abortions.

Denis O'Brien

Sorry, couldn't get past your first phrase: "The ACLU has zero credibility on the first Amendment ..." Are you aware of what the ACLU does? "unwillingness to bake a cake"? I think you mean discriminate! Defending free speech means all speech, not just the speech with which you disagree so, is not advertising abortions free speech?


Stay Informed