

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Partnership for Civil Justice Fund counsel Mara Verheyden-Hilliard: 202.232.1180 x202, mvh@justiceonline.org
Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas: 720-251-0425, gabbas@cair.com
CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, ihooper@cair.com
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), the Georgia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Georgia) and CAIR Legal Defense Fund today welcomed a "major victory" in their lawsuit against Georgia's no boycott of Israel law after a federal district court ruled that the State of Georgia's 2016 law punishing boycotts of Israel is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), the Georgia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Georgia) and CAIR Legal Defense Fund today welcomed a "major victory" in their lawsuit against Georgia's no boycott of Israel law after a federal district court ruled that the State of Georgia's 2016 law punishing boycotts of Israel is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
There will be a briefing on this case live at 3 p.m. ET on CAIR's Facebook page
In an order released today, Judge Mark Cohen ruled that the University System of Georgia violated journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin's constitutional rights when it cancelled her speaking engagement on a college campus because she refused to sign a state-mandated oath pledging not to engage in boycotts of Israel. Martin is a well-known advocate of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which the court ruled is protected by the First Amendment.
READ THE COURT'S DECISION HERE
In his 29-page decision, Judge Cohen identified extensive constitutional problems with Georgia's anti-BDS law. He held that the anti-BDS law "prohibits inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," which "burdens Martin's right to free speech." Judge Cohen also ruled that the anti-BDS law's requirement that Martin sign an oath to refrain from boycotting Israel is "no different than requiring a person to espouse certain political beliefs or to engage in certain political associations."
The court relied heavily on NAACP v. Claiborne, the Supreme Court's landmark decision protecting the right to boycott.
"This outrageous effort by Georgia politicians to censor free speech rights for a cause they oppose was ruled unconstitutional today," said Partnership for Civil Justice Fund counsel Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. "This ruling comes at a crucial moment, when millions of Americans are questioning the use of U.S.-provided weapons in the onslaught against the Palestinian people and makes clear that the Constitution protects participation in the BDS movement, just as it protected the seminal civil rights and labor organizing boycotts that moved our society forward."
In a statement, CAIR Georgia Executive Director Murtaza Khwaja said:
"Whether in speaking out against voter suppression laws here in Georgia or human rights violations against the Palestinian people, Georgians are actively engaged in their constitutionally protected right to free speech and coordinated boycott. Now, as much as ever, these rights must be cherished and preserved. The court's decision's today is a significant step in ensuring Georgians are able to do so freely today and in future."
"Israel's latest violent onslaught against Palestinians underscores the importance of advocacy for Palestinian human rights," said CAIR Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas. "By standing up against this illegal anti-BDS law, Abby Martin ensures that all Americans have the freedom to stand up for Palestine."
In a statement, award-winning journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin said:
"I am thrilled at the judge's decision finding this law unconstitutional as it so clearly violates the free speech rights of myself and so many others in Georgia. My First Amendment rights were restricted on behalf of a foreign government, which flies in the face of the principles of freedom and democracy.
"The government of Israel has pushed state legislatures to enact these laws only because they know that sympathy and support for the population they brutalize, occupy, ethnically cleanse and subject to apartheid, is finally growing in popular consciousness --they want to hold back the tide of justice by preemptively restricting the right of American citizens to peacefully take a stand against their crimes."
While the judge's opinion clearly indicates his view that the law is unconstitutional, the decision does not yet strike down the law. The next stage of the case will regard what steps the court will take to address to the constitutional violation identified.
BACKGROUNDER
Numerous advocacy groups and state legislators, including then-House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, opposed Georgia's anti-BDS law as a violation of free speech when the state legislature first considered it.
Similar measures have been enacted in 25 other states as part of an effort to block the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Modeled after the global South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS movement's stated goal is to pressure the Israeli government to end its occupation of Palestinian territory.
CAIR, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other civil rights organizations have filed free speech lawsuits against anti-BDS laws in Arkansas, Arizona, Maryland, and Texas, where CAIR won a landmark legal victory in 2019.
The federal court in Texas held that the state's anti-boycott law "threatens to suppress unpopular ideas" and "manipulate the public debate" on Israel and Palestine "through coercion rather than persuasion." The Court concluded: "This the First Amendment does not allow."
CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, based in Washington, D.C., is a public interest legal organization that has litigates on behalf of political organizations and activists across the country to protect and defend First Amendment rights. For more information go to www.JusticeOnline.org.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund is a public interest legal organization that brings a unique and cutting edge approach dedicated to the defense of human and civil rights secured by law, the protection of free speech and dissent, and the elimination of prejudice and discrimination. Among the PCJF cases are constitutional law, civil rights, women's rights, economic justice matters and Freedom of Information Act cases.
(202) 232-1180One human rights lawyer said the centrist Pennsylvania governor was trying to stop Rabb because he's "anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor."
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is working behind the scenes to derail progressive state representative Chris Rabb in his bid for a seat representing the state's 3rd Congressional District in the US House—reportedly putting his thumb on the scale to drag pediatric surgeon Dr. Ala Stanford, the Israel lobby’s preferred candidate, over the finish line.
Axios reported this weekend that the Democratic governor, who has sought to punish boycotts and other activism against Israel, was seeking to quietly influence the race to defeat Rabb, who has been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights on the campaign trail and a critic of Shapiro’s centrist stances.
Rabb has called for an arms embargo against Israel amid the genocide in Gaza and endorsed the right of return for Palestinian refugees. But he's also pressured Shapiro to end what he says is "state collaboration" with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
While still considered an underdog in the three-way primary, which takes place on May 19, Rabb has gained steam in recent weeks with key endorsements from progressive leaders, most notably Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has raised funds and plans to visit Philadelphia to campaign with him on Friday, days before voters head to the polls.
Shapiro has not publicly weighed in on the race and has not endorsed a candidate. But according to Axios, he and his team "privately told allies that he disapproves of Rabb and has taken steps to block his path, according to three people familiar with the discussions."
The report continued:
Shapiro has privately advised Philadelphia's building trades unions to avoid inadvertently helping Rabb, the lone progressive in the race, by attacking one of his center-left opponents, two of our sources told us.
The sources said Shapiro suggested that the building trades, which are backing another candidate, Sharif Street, avoid running negative ads against a third contender, Ala Stanford.
Street and Stanford are seen as traditional Democrats who share similar voters.
Stanford led the race with 28% of the vote, ahead of Rabb’s 23%, in a poll conducted in April by the 314 Action Fund, a super PAC backing Stanford.
However, that very PAC has proven a liability for Stanford in the stretch run of the campaign. Last month, Drop Site News revealed that 314 Action Fund had acted as a shell organization for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and had covertly received $500,000 from the lobbying group, which Democratic voters have come to overwhelmingly view as toxic.
The revelation has proven a public relations disaster for Stanford, who had said she “did not accept money from AIPAC” back in March. When confronted by voters about her views on the conflict, she has struggled to answer their questions and has faced heavy criticism for her statements that accusing Israel of "genocide," an opinion held by many leading human rights organizations and UN experts, is "hurtful" to Jewish people in the same way that using a racial slur is hurtful to Black people.
Amid other embarrassments, including her failure to explain her plan to "abolish" ICE and her rollout of what was described as a "comedically amateurish" policy platform on social media, Stanford dropped out of an April 29 debate just hours before it was set to take place, citing unspecified “misogynistic attacks and lies from both of my opponents.”
There have not been any public opinion polls on the race since Stanford's crash. But PoliticsPA.com now gives Street a 61% chance of winning, Rabb a 33% chance, and Stanford a distant 5% chance, citing prediction markets.
Axios suggested that Shapiro's primary goal is to prevent the votes from splitting between the two centrists, thereby allowing Rabb to win. But the piece suggests that Stanford is Shapiro's preferred horse.
Stanford has the backing of PA-03’s outgoing occupant, Rep. Dwight Evans (D), who is described as a close ally of Shapiro. Street is also described as having a “strained relationship” with Shapiro, who backed his rival in a 2022 struggle for leadership of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.
Shapiro's push to blunt Rabb's momentum casts Philadelphia as yet another battleground in the broader war over the Democratic Party's identity, especially surrounding support for Israel, but also with other issues like immigration and healthcare, where leadership is out of step with voters' demands.
" Josh Shapiro is trying to derail the congressional run of Democratic PA State Rep Chris Rabb because Rabb is anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor," said human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid.
Will Bunch, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, said the governor's effort to defeat Rabb was “one more reminder that Josh Shapiro is who we thought he was.”
“Just a question to the BBC,” said the documentary's executive producer. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?”
The makers of a documentary about Israeli attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure in Gaza won a prestigious BAFTA award on Sunday—and they used their acceptance speech to lash out at BBC for refusing to air their work.
The film, "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack," was originally scheduled to be aired by the BBC in early 2025 before the network announced in June that it would not be releasing the documentary because it had "come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality."
Shortly after, the documentary was picked up by the UK-based Channel 4 and aired in July.
UK journalist Ramita Navai, the main reporter of the documentary, criticized the BBC for declining to show the film, which she denounced as a political decision.
“Israel has killed over 47,000 children and women in Gaza so far," Navai said. "Israel has... targeted every single one of Gaza’s hospitals. It’s killed over 1,700 Palestinian doctors and healthcare workers. It has imprisoned over 400 in what the UN now calls a ‘medicide.’ These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refuses to show. But we refuse to be silenced and censored."
🇵🇸🇬🇧 A Gaza documentary the BBC paid for and refused to air just won a Bafta.
The filmmakers used their acceptance speech to call out the BBC directly.
Presenter Ramita Navai:
"We refuse to be silenced and censored."
The BBC then edited portions of her remarks from its own… https://t.co/xLRLfdLV6W pic.twitter.com/K8pYhOzJTd
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 11, 2026
Ben de Pear, the film's executive producer, also pointed the finger at the BBC as he accepted the BAFTA award for best current affairs television program.
"Just a question to the BBC,” said de Pear, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?"
As reported by Al Jazeera, de Pear after accepting the award also praised Palestinian journalists Jaber Badwan and Osana Al Ashi, who contributed on-the-ground footage for the documentary at the risk of their own lives.
"[We] woke up every day wondering if the two journalists on the ground were still alive," de Pear told reporters backstage.
The Trump administration has conducted more than two dozen surveillance and reconnaissance flights off Cuba's coast since early February, according to CNN.
US surveillance and reconnaissance flights off the coast of Cuba have surged in recent months as President Donald Trump has issued increasingly belligerent threats to seize the island nation by force.
CNN reported Sunday that the US Navy and Air Force have conducted more than two dozen surveillance flights—mostly of them near Havana and Santiago de Cuba, the country's largest cities—since early February, after the Trump administration invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president. The outlet noted that "similar patterns, in which ramped-up rhetoric by the Trump administration coincided with an uptick in publicly visible surveillance flights, occurred in the lead-up to US military operations in both Venezuela and Iran."
"The flights are notable not only for their proximity to the coast, which puts them well within range of gathering intelligence, but for the suddenness of their appearance—prior to February, such publicly visible flights were exceedingly rare in this area—and for their timing," CNN reported.
CNN published its story days after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions targeting a conglomerate operated by Cuba's military and a natural resources firm, intensifying the United States' decades-long economic war against the island nation.
"Our people already know the cruelty behind the actions of the US government and the viciousness with which it is capable of attacking us," Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said in response to the sanctions. "They understand, just as the rest of the world does, that this is a unilateral aggression against a nation and a population whose sole ambition is to live in peace, masters of their own destiny and free from the pernicious interference of US imperialism."
In a New York Times op-ed on Monday, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) wrote that the Trump administration's "blockade of fuel to Cuba, on top of the longest embargo in modern US history, defies the norms of international law that provide for state sovereignty, nonintervention in domestic affairs and the right of nations to trade freely."
"It amounts to an economic assault on the basic infrastructure of Cuba, designed to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population by manufacturing a humanitarian crisis in which healthcare, running water, agriculture and transportation are no longer available," wrote Jayapal and Jackson, who visited Cuba in April and witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of US economic warfare.
"During our visit, we spoke with a wide range of Cuban citizens—political dissidents, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society organizations and humanitarian aid groups," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "We also met with the families of Cuba’s political prisoners. Everywhere, there was agreement: America’s blockade must end, and a US invasion must not take place."
Trump has repeatedly threatened a military assault on Cuba in the months since his administration illegally attacked Venezuela and abducted its president.
"Cuba is next, by the way," Trump declared at a Saudi-backed investment summit in Miami in late March. "Pretend I didn't say that, please."
Citing unnamed US officials, The Associated Press reported last week that the Trump administration "is not looking at imminent military action against Havana" as the two sides continued to negotiate a diplomatic agreement.
AP added that the administration officials cautioned "that Trump could change his mind at any time and that military options are still on the table."