根據馬里蘭大學學院市分校2019年10月的重大民生事務民調，有72%的受訪者反對任何懲罰抵制以色列行動的法案，支持者佔22%。這個民調也反映了美國兩大政黨支持者對BDS運動觀點上的落差，在至少是聽聞過抵制以色列運動的受訪者中，76%的共和黨支持者反對該運動，另外有48%的民主黨支持者支持BDS運動[6]。一個名為進步數據（英语：Data for Progress）（DFP）的2019年調查中有35%至27%的受訪者反對反BDS法，同樣地，反對的民主黨人佔了48%而支持的佔了15%；反對的共和黨人佔27%而支持的佔44%。有70%至80%的受訪者相信抵制運動是合理的抗議手段[7]。
支持者則認為抵制運動不符合憲法對「發表言論」（expressive conduct）的定義，因此儘管「宣揚/呼籲」抵制運動可以受到憲法保護，但「參與」抵制運動本身則不受保護並且是反BDS法所針對的，而單純「宣揚/呼籲」抵制運動而沒有親身抵制的人也不會受到反BDS法影響[17]。他們亦稱《全國有色人種協進會訴克萊伯恩硬件公司》的裁判針對的也是「宣揚/呼籲」而非「參與」，因此沒有抵觸反BDS法[18]，這個觀點被採納於2018年《阿肯色時報訴馬克·沃爾德里普》一案中，阿肯色州地區法院的裁判中引用了2006年的《拉姆斯菲爾德訴學術及學院權益論壇公司（英语：Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.）》作為先例，當時聯邦最高法院裁定如果學院拒絕軍方招聘員獲得學院資源（阻止被指奉行歧視LGBT政策的軍方進入校園招聘），聯邦政府有權扣起其資助撥款。支持者指聯邦法院的裁判理據是「『謝絕軍方招聘員』不等於『言論』」，因此相同邏輯可以套用於「抵制以色列」[19]。批評者則反駁指學院的行為不屬於「抵制軍方」因此不能與「抵制以色列」相提並論[20][21]。
2017年5月，公立學校教師埃絲特·孔茨（Esther Koontz）展開了個人針對以色列商業活動的抵制運動，於2017年7月10日起，孔茨以師範職員受僱於堪薩斯州教育局（英语：Kansas State Department of Education），師範計劃的理事要求孔茨簽署宣誓書證明自己沒有牽涉入抵制以色列運動，孔茨拒絕配合，教育局因此不支付她薪酬或簽約。孔茨入禀控告州政府，州政府一方由教育專員蘭德爾·沃森（Randall Watson）代表並申請禁制令[44]。
2010年，「法國巴勒斯坦團結協會」（Association France Palestine Solidarité）針對以色列企業SodaStream（英语：SodaStream）發起抵制運動，他們指控這家公司在約旦河西岸設立了生產線同時又將產品標籤為「以色列製造」，因此聲稱SodaStream在法國「非法銷售」其產品的行為構成「欺詐」而須要負上刑事責任。SodaStream的法國分銷商入禀控告協會的指責，2014年1月法國法院宣判協會不得使用「非法」和「欺詐」的字眼形容SodaStream，並且判協會支付SodaStream四千歐羅作為聲譽受損賠償和二千五百歐羅以承擔對方的法律支出。同時間SodaStream宣布會將位於猶太殖民區的廠房遷移至以色列南部以猶太人居民為主的城市萊哈維姆（英语：Lehavim）[80]。
BDS運動奧爾登堡支部計劃於2016年5月18日邀請以色列民運人士出席BDS論壇，逐支部的成員克里斯托夫·格蘭仕（Christoph Glanz）向奧爾登堡市政府申請租用路德維希文化中心（英语：Peter Friedrich Ludwig Hospital）的活動室舉行論壇並獲得初步批准，不過市政府收到多封電郵指其活動可能不合法後認為該活動存在保安隱憂，於是通知格蘭仕他的申請遭到撤銷，格蘭仕相信市政府的決定是出於政治打壓而向奧爾登堡行政法院入禀控訴市政府。法院認為由於市政府在批准了原訴人預約場地申請後才撤銷，因此是違反了德國基本法第5(1)條「所有人皆可透過話語、寫作或藝術，自由抒發和散播己見，並在不受拘束下利用現有資源實踐這個目的」及第8(1)條「集會自由」，因此判市政府敗訴[85]。
里德訴慕尼黑市
慕尼黑市議會於2017年12月13日通過了名為《抵抗所有形式的反猶太主義，不與反猶太主義的BDS運動合作》（Gegen jeden Antisemitismus! - Keine Zusammenarbeit mit der antisemitischen BDS-Bewegung）的動議[86]，這是第一個向BDS運動拒絕批准使用公共場所或基金的德國城市。積極推動市議會立法的夏洛特·克諾布洛赫（英语：Charlotte Knobloch），是一名納粹大屠殺的生還者並出任慕尼黑猶太人社區主席，她對動議獲得通過表示：「這是慕尼黑對反猶太主義發出了信號。[87][88]」
2018年4月19日，克勞斯·里德（Klaus Ried）向慕尼黑市博物館（英语：Münchner Stadtmuseum）申請租用場地舉辦主題為《慕尼黑對言論自由的限制到達什麼程度？市議會2017年12月13日的動議和其影響》（Wie sehr schränkt München die Meinungsfreiheit ein? - Der Stadtratsbeschluss vom 13. Dezember 2017 und seine Folgen）辯論會，預定與會者都是熱衷於政治議題。一周後博物館以活動違反了2017年12月通過的動議——即活動的主題本身為由拒絕了里德的租場申請，由於活動的話題一定會牽涉到BDS運動因此受動議約束。2018年5月30日里德到慕尼黑行政法院入禀控告市政府，認為拒絕場地申請是侵犯了他的言論自由與集會自由權利，但法院以政府場館有權自定租場條約，並認同博物館不是舉辦政治辯論的合適場地的理據因此判原告敗訴[89]。
德國西部城市波恩每年都會舉辦「波恩多樣化文化與交流節」（Vielfalt! – Bonner Kultur – und Begegnungsfest），與BDS運動有聯繫的「德國巴勒斯坦婦女協會」亦參與了數屆，但當2019年申請參加該活動時，被市議會以5月14日通過了名為《波恩沒有反猶太的BDS運動立足點》（In Bonn ist kein Platz für die antisemitische BDS-Bewegung）[92]動議為由，拒絕了其參與交流節。該動議要求所有市政機構不要提供活動場所予BDS運動組織或附和BDS訴求的組織[93]。
^內塔尼亞胡：Whoever boycotts us will be boycotted. The UN Human Rights Council is a biased body that is devoid of influence. Not for nothing have I already ordered the severing of ties with it. It was also not for nothing that the American administration has taken this step together with us. In recent years, we have promoted laws in most US states, which determine that strong action is to be taken against whoever tries to boycott Israel.
^美國最高法院：boycotts and related activities to bring about political, social and economic change are political speech, occupying the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.
^阿肯色州地區法院：neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct
引用
^哈佛法律評論 2020: Such logic might have required the antiapartheid movement to address not just injustice by white South Africans, but also abuses by the black African National Congress leadership or by other African countries. ... Iran, ..., self-defines based on religion, yet current U.S. refusals to buy from Iran do not give rise to anti-Shia religious discrimination claims
^BDS運動德國抗議信 2018: The fact is that more than 40 Jewish organizations around the world advocate for BDS and oppose equating criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. The Auschwitz survivor Esther Bejerano, who was a member of the Auschwitz Orchestra, also supports BDS
^猶太虛擬圖書館: To date, 35 states have adopted laws, executive orders or resolutions that are designed to discourage boycotts against Israel.
^哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05: Though the specific provisions of anti-BDS laws vary widely, they have taken two primary forms: (1) contract-focused laws that condition the receipt of government contracts on an entity certifying that it is not boycotting and will not boycott Israel; and (2) investment-focused laws that mandate public investment funds to divest from entities involved in boycotts of Israel.
^合法支持巴勒斯坦 2020: 紐約時報 editorial board criticized the Israel Anti-Boycott Act as "clearly part of a widening attempt to silence one side of the debate." The Los Angeles Times editorial board was unequivocal that boycott and divestment campaigns are protected by the First Amendment.
^哈佛法律評論 2020: As nine states argued in an amicus brief: it is "intuitively obvious . . . [that] targeting a particular group (and those associating with them) for the intentional infliction of economic harm is discrimination, by definition," and BDS does just that.
^哈佛法律評論 2020: Because there is no specific test for whether a consumer boycott constitutes discrimination, courts can instead look to two types of discrimination widely recognized in existing law: discriminatory intent and disparate impact discrimination.
^哈佛法律評論 2016: And because political boycotts are directed at issues of public concern, they are protected activities that "rest[] on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."
^芝加哥每日法律公報 2019-05-01: Those defending the constitutionality of the laws, like Kontorovich, maintain the trial court misinterpreted Claiborne to convey First Amendment protections to all activities associated with boycotts. "The actual issue at hand [in Claiborne] involves actual boycott organizing activities, basically calling on people to boycott and promoting a boycott, that is speech," he said. "The state can still get contracts under the state law if they say 'We hate Israel and we think Israel should be boycotted.' … They are entirely entitled to contract with the state because that's speech. … Boycotting Israel by itself does not tell you anything about the motives of the boycott."
^Lawfare部落格 2019: In the Arkansas case, Arkansas Times v. Waldrip, the district court ruled that boycotts against Israel, as defined by the statute, are not protected by the First Amendment. Relying on FAIR, the court found that boycotts are not protected "inherently expressive conduct" because "a refusal to deal, or particular commercial purchasing decisions, do not communicate ideas through words or other expressive media." The court similarly concluded that Claiborne was not on point as it "did not 'address purchasing decisions or other non-expressive conduct'" and instead reached only "meetings, speeches, and non-violent picketing."
^芝加哥每日法律公報 2019-05-01: "I think the court has clearly said in Rumsfeld v. FAIR that the decision of who you do business with or not, even when you have a clear ideological motive, does not become expressive," said Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and a director at the Kohelet Policy Forum in Jerusalem.
^哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05: While an observer could mistake the actions of a BDS boycotter as motivated by something other than specific beliefs about Israel's treatment of Palestinians—for example, anti-semitism — the expressive quality of BDS boycotts is more palpable than the pragmatic recruitment events in Rumsfeld. Particularly as boycotts of Israel have become more widespread and publicized, it is increasingly reasonable to infer a boycotter's political motivations from merely observing their conduct.
^芝加哥每日法律公報 2019-05-01: Hauss, one of those attorneys, argued FAIR shouldn't control because that case didn't concern a consumer boycott movement and neither the word 'boycott' nor any citation to Claiborne appears anywhere in the FAIR ruling. "The notion that FAIR could overrule Claiborne, without even mentioning it, doesn't really pass the laugh test," Hauss said. "I think everyone understands when someone is participating in a BDS boycott that they are expressing something."
^哈佛法律評論 2016: Kontorovich has advanced this conduct-based argument, analogizing the anti-BDS statute to President Obama's executive order forbidding federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation.... But this definition would cover the Claiborne Hardware boycott, which was directed at white merchants. Participation in a political boycott, even if it has a racial dimension, cannot be equated with a simple act of discrimination.
^哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05: Furthermore, Kontorovich's argument appears to conflict with the basic factual circumstances of Claiborne, in which the NAACP and other groups specifically and deliberately targeted white-owned businesses. That is, the boycotters discriminated on the basis of race, which, according to the argument of Cuomo, Kontorovich, and others, would justify the government banning the boycott altogether.
^哈佛法律評論 2016: ... under the doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions," which holds that the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — especially, his interest in freedom of speech," this distinction between direct and indirect burdens on protected speech makes no constitutional difference. In fact, the Supreme Court has applied the doctrine to directly hold that the state cannot terminate contracts in retaliation for a contractor's exercise of First Amendment rights.
^哈佛法律評論 2016: As noted above, in the case of the anti-BDS statute, it is difficult to argue that a company's decision to boycott a particular nation is related to its ability to perform a contract for which it bids. Instead, the state is using its economic leverage to discourage protected boycott activity. With the unconstitutional conditions doctrine "undergoing something of a renaissance in the Roberts Court," the Court could well use AID's formulation of the doctrine to invalidate the anti-BDS statute even if it stopped short of extending First Amendment protection to all new bidders.
^亞利桑那州議會: 亞利桑那州修訂法令，第35篇《公共財政》，第2章《公共基金的運用》，第9條《抵制與撤資以色列》，第393節《定義》："Boycott" means engaging in a refusal to deal, terminating business activities or performing other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with entities doing business in Israel or in territories controlled by Israel, if those actions are taken either: (a) Based in part on the fact that the entity does business in Israel or in territories controlled by Israel. (b) In a manner that discriminates on the basis of nationality, national origin or religion and that is not based on a valid business reason.
^哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05，第130頁: This provision extends far beyond the standard dictionary definition of "boycott," which would merely encompass a refusal to deal, though the precise limits of the statutory prohibition are not clear.
^哥倫比亞國際法雜誌 2018-05，第131頁: However, divestment could fall within the broad definitions of "boycott" of many of the statutes, even if the definitions do not explicitly cover such conduct. ... In the four state laws that explicitly mention "sanctions," the specific language regarding sanctions is not written in a way that would be enforceable against a business.
^哈佛法律評論 2016: Claiborne Hardware had not yet been decided in 1979, so it was not yet clear that participation in a political boycott was protected First Amendment activity. Today, the federal antiboycott statutes may be unconstitutional.
^哈佛法律評論 2016: A key feature of both federal statutes is that they apply only to boycotts organized by foreign nations against allies of the United States.
^巴勒斯坦團結法律支援 2015: That act of Congress in 1979 was a rider to legislation regulating US exports and it was intended to counter participation in the Arab League's boycott of Israel. Specifically, the anti-boycott law prohibited participation in a boycott in cooperation with a foreign country. In no way did that legislation apply to boycotts undertaken as a matter of social, political or moral conscience; nor could it, under core First Amendment principles that protect boycotts undertaken to protest foreign or domestic governmental policies or actions.
^芝加哥每日法律公報 2019-05-01: Attorney Marc Greendorfer founded the Zachor Legal Institute, a think tank focused on legal challenges to the BDS movement. He said the Longshoremen case shows that the government can limit boycotts that serve as political protest of foreign nations' conduct. "It happens to be the case that International Longshoremen's involved unions, but it also involved directly analogous fact patterns," Greendorfer said.
^羅格斯法律評論 2020，第1323頁: However, the Court's analysis made it clear that International Longshoremen was a case about laborlaw under the NLRA, rather than a case about individual rights or the boycott of foreign entities. ... Labor union boycotts have consistently "been analyzed differently than boycotts of business or civil rights groups"
^The Intercept 2019-04-26: By any name, that's free speech and free speech is the north star of our democracy. It's foundational, and this decision underlines that no issue of importance can be addressed if the speech about it is stymied, or worse, silenced.
^紐約時報 2019-08-15: Thursday's decision was the first time the law was used against American lawmakers, though seven French politicians and European Union parliamentarians were denied entry in late 2017, according to The Jerusalem Post.
^de Leo 2020: By stressing that everyone has the right to call for a boycott of Israeli products, as long as it does not turn to incitement to intolerance, violence or hate, the Court firmly and categorically rejected the idea that the BDS movement is discriminatory and anti-Semitic in itself.
Orr, Arthur. SB 81. LegiScan. Alabama Senate. 2016 [2020-11-09]. （原始内容存档于2021-06-03）. Public contracts, governmental entities precluded from entering into contracts with entities that boycott certain persons or entities with whom this state enjoys open trade
Klein, Jeffrey. S 6438. LegiScan. New York Senate. 2014 [2020-11-09]. （原始内容存档于2020-11-16）. Prohibits the use of state aid by colleges and universities to fund or provide membership in academic institutions that are boycotting a country or higher education institutions of a country.
Phillips, Elaine. S 2492. LegiScan. New York Senate. 2017 [2021-06-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-06-04）. Relates to purchasing restrictions and persons boycotting American allies.
Phillips, Elaine. S 2493. LegiScan. New York Senate. 2017 [2021-06-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-06-04）. Prohibits certain student organizations which participate in discrimination or intolerance from receiving funding from SUNY, CUNY or community colleges.
Klein, Jeffrey. S 4837. LegiScan. New York Senate. 2017 [2021-06-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-06-03）. Prohibits the use of state aid by colleges and universities to fund or provide membership in academic institutions that are boycotting a country or higher education institutions of a country.
Bloom, Richard. AB 2844. LegiScan. California Assembly. 2016 [2021-06-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-06-04）. An act to add Section 2010 to the Public Contract Code, relating to public contracts.
McBride, Mark; Weaver, Darrell. HB 3967. LegiScan. Oklahoma House. 2020 [2021-06-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-06-04）. State contracts; declaring Israel a prominent trading partner; prohibiting state contracts without certain written certification; effective date.
Bosma, Brian. HB 1378. LegiScan. Indiana House. 2016 [2021-06-03]. （原始内容存档于2020-11-17）. Divestment from boycott Israel businesses. Requires the public retirement system to divest from businesses that engage in action or inaction to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel. Provides for notice to businesses, reinvestment, and civil immunity. Requires certain reports to the legislative council. Makes a conforming amendment.
Fine, Randy; Moskowitz, Jared. HB 741. LegiScan. Florida House. 2018 [2021-06-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-06-03）. Prohibits company that is on Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List or that is engaged in boycott of Israel from bidding on, submitting proposal for, or entering into or renewing contract with agency or local governmental entity for goods or services; provides exceptions; requires specified provision in such contracts; requires company to make specified certification in specified circumstances; provides for preemption.
Carroll, Jonathan. HB 4049. LegiScan. Illinois House. 2020 [2021-06-03]. （原始内容存档于2020-11-10）. Amends the Elementary, Secondary, and Higher Education Article of the Illinois Human Rights Act. Defines "anti-Semitism". Provides that an institution of elementary, secondary, or higher education commits a civil rights violation if it fails to treat anti-Semitism in an identical manner to discrimination motivated by race. Describes anti-Semitism. Provides that nothing in the new provisions infringes on the constitutional protections for free speech or may be construed to conflict with federal or State discrimination laws.
