根据马里兰大学学院市分校2019年10月的重大民生事务民调，有72%的受访者反对任何惩罚抵制以色列行动的法案，支持者占22%。这个民调也反映了美国两大政党支持者对BDS运动观点上的落差，在至少是听闻过抵制以色列运动的受访者中，76%的共和党支持者反对该运动，另外有48%的民主党支持者支持BDS运动[6]。一个名为进步数据（英语：Data for Progress）（DFP）的2019年调查中有35%至27%的受访者反对反BDS法，同样地，反对的民主党人占了48%而支持的占了15%；反对的共和党人占27%而支持的占44%。有70%至80%的受访者相信抵制运动是合理的抗议手段[7]。
支持者则认为抵制运动不符合宪法对“发表言论”（expressive conduct）的定义，因此尽管“宣扬/呼吁”抵制运动可以受到宪法保护，但“参与”抵制运动本身则不受保护并且是反BDS法所针对的，而单纯“宣扬/呼吁”抵制运动而没有亲身抵制的人也不会受到反BDS法影响[17]。他们亦称《全国有色人种协进会诉克莱伯恩硬件公司》的裁判针对的也是“宣扬/呼吁”而非“参与”，因此没有抵触反BDS法[18]，这个观点被采纳于2018年《阿肯色时报诉马克·沃尔德里普》一案中，阿肯色州地区法院的裁判中引用了2006年的《拉姆斯菲尔德诉学术及学院权益论坛公司（英语：Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.）》作为先例，当时联邦最高法院裁定如果学院拒绝军方招聘员获得学院资源（阻止被指奉行歧视LGBT政策的军方进入校园招聘），联邦政府有权扣起其资助拨款。支持者指联邦法院的裁判理据是“‘谢绝军方招聘员’不等于‘言论’”，因此相同逻辑可以套用于“抵制以色列”[19]。批评者则反驳指学院的行为不属于“抵制军方”因此不能与“抵制以色列”相提并论[20][21]。
支持者另一个反对引用全国有色人种协进会案例的理据是，该案针对的是抵制运动的合法性，而反BDS法只是剥削抵制者其中一项权益，即获得政府机构的合约。批评者引用美国的法律原则——“违宪条件”禁止政府“以侵犯宪法赋予的权利为基础排斥特定个体，特别是在言论自由的权利上。”这条原则于《皮克林诉教育委员会（英语：Pickering v. Board of Education）》和《埃尔罗德诉伯恩斯（英语：Elrod v. Burns）》两宗成为指示案例的最高法院诉讼中得以实践，但两宗诉讼都是在控辩双方已经建立了商业合作关系的前提下发生的，因此无法得知最高法院对于控辩双方都还未进入合作关系的诉讼中会如何判决[24]。批评者又引用2013年《美国国际开发署诉开放社会国际同盟（英语：USAID v. Alliance for Open Society (2013)）》的最高法院判决指，政府不能要求团体就特定观点表态作为获得资助拨款的条件[25]。
2017年5月，公立学校教师埃丝特·孔茨（Esther Koontz）展开了个人针对以色列商业活动的抵制运动，于2017年7月10日起，孔茨以师范职员受雇于堪萨斯州教育局（英语：Kansas State Department of Education），师范计划的理事要求孔茨签署宣誓书证明自己没有牵涉入抵制以色列运动，孔茨拒绝配合，教育局因此不支付她薪酬或签约。孔茨入禀控告州政府，州政府一方由教育专员兰德尔·沃森（Randall Watson）代表并申请禁制令[44]。
巴伊亚·阿玛维（Bahia Amawi）：巴勒斯坦裔矫正语言障碍师并主动抵制以色列商品，她已经受雇于普夫卢格维尔独立学区（英语：Pflugerville Independent School District）超过9年，但因为拒绝宣誓而不获续约。校方原本告诉阿玛维可以在合约中将“不抵制以色列”一栏划掉，但校方后来改口指宣誓是强制的续约条件。
2010年，“法国巴勒斯坦团结协会”（Association France Palestine Solidarité）针对以色列企业SodaStream（英语：SodaStream）发起抵制运动，他们指控这家公司在约旦河西岸设立了生产线同时又将产品标签为“以色列制造”，因此声称SodaStream在法国“非法销售”其产品的行为构成“欺诈”而须要负上刑事责任。SodaStream的法国分销商入禀控告协会的指责，2014年1月法国法院宣判协会不得使用“非法”和“欺诈”的字眼形容SodaStream，并且判协会支付SodaStream四千欧罗作为声誉受损赔偿和二千五百欧罗以承担对方的法律支出。同时间SodaStream宣布会将位于犹太殖民区的厂房迁移至以色列南部以犹太人居民为主的城市莱哈维姆（英语：Lehavim）[80]。
BDS运动奥尔登堡支部计划于2016年5月18日邀请以色列民运人士出席BDS论坛，逐支部的成员克里斯托夫·格兰仕（Christoph Glanz）向奥尔登堡市政府申请租用路德维希文化中心（英语：Peter Friedrich Ludwig Hospital）的活动室举行论坛并获得初步批准，不过市政府收到多封电邮指其活动可能不合法后认为该活动存在保安隐忧，于是通知格兰仕他的申请遭到撤销，格兰仕相信市政府的决定是出于政治打压而向奥尔登堡行政法院入禀控诉市政府。法院认为由于市政府在批准了原诉人预约场地申请后才撤销，因此是违反了德国基本法第5(1)条“所有人皆可透过话语、写作或艺术，自由抒发和散播己见，并在不受拘束下利用现有资源实践这个目的”及第8(1)条“集会自由”，因此判市政府败诉[85]。
里德诉慕尼黑市
慕尼黑市议会于2017年12月13日通过了名为《抵抗所有形式的反犹太主义，不与反犹太主义的BDS运动合作》（Gegen jeden Antisemitismus! - Keine Zusammenarbeit mit der antisemitischen BDS-Bewegung）的动议[86]，这是第一个向BDS运动拒绝批准使用公共场所或基金的德国城市。积极推动市议会立法的夏洛特·克诺布洛赫（英语：Charlotte Knobloch），是一名纳粹大屠杀的生还者并出任慕尼黑犹太人社区主席，她对动议获得通过表示：“这是慕尼黑对反犹太主义发出了信号。[87][88]”
2018年4月19日，克劳斯·里德（Klaus Ried）向慕尼黑市博物馆（英语：Münchner Stadtmuseum）申请租用场地举办主题为《慕尼黑对言论自由的限制到达什么程度？市议会2017年12月13日的动议和其影响》（Wie sehr schränkt München die Meinungsfreiheit ein? - Der Stadtratsbeschluss vom 13. Dezember 2017 und seine Folgen）辩论会，预定与会者都是热衷于政治议题。一周后博物馆以活动违反了2017年12月通过的动议——即活动的主题本身为由拒绝了里德的租场申请，由于活动的话题一定会牵涉到BDS运动因此受动议约束。2018年5月30日里德到慕尼黑行政法院入禀控告市政府，认为拒绝场地申请是侵犯了他的言论自由与集会自由权利，但法院以政府场馆有权自定租场条约，并认同博物馆不是举办政治辩论的合适场地的理据因此判原告败诉[89]。
德国西部城市波恩每年都会举办“波恩多样化文化与交流节”（Vielfalt! – Bonner Kultur – und Begegnungsfest），与BDS运动有联系的“德国巴勒斯坦妇女协会”亦参与了数届，但当2019年申请参加该活动时，被市议会以5月14日通过了名为《波恩没有反犹太的BDS运动立足点》（In Bonn ist kein Platz für die antisemitische BDS-Bewegung）[92]动议为由，拒绝了其参与交流节。该动议要求所有市政机构不要提供活动场所予BDS运动组织或附和BDS诉求的组织[93]。
内塔尼亚胡：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.
美国最高法院：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.
哈佛法律评论 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运动德国抗议信 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
哥伦比亚国际法杂志 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: 纽约时报 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.
哈佛法律评论 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.
哈佛法律评论 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.
哈佛法律评论 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."
芝加哥每日法律公报 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."
芝加哥每日法律公报 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.
哥伦比亚国际法杂志 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.
芝加哥每日法律公报 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."
哈佛法律评论 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.
哥伦比亚国际法杂志 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.
哈佛法律评论 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.
哈佛法律评论 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.
亚利桑那州议会: 亚利桑那州修订法令，第35篇《公共财政》，第2章《公共基金的运用》，第9条《抵制与撤资以色列》，第393节《定义》："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.
哥伦比亚国际法杂志 2018-05，第130页: 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.
哥伦比亚国际法杂志 2018-05，第131页: 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.
哈佛法律评论 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.
哈佛法律评论 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.
巴勒斯坦团结法律支援 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.
芝加哥每日法律公报 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.
罗格斯法律评论 2020，第1323页: 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.
纽约时报 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.
