Uncategorized
Supreme Court upholds Arkansas state law that prohibits contractors from boycotting Israel
(JTA) – In a major victory for pro-Israel advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal against an Arkansas state law requiring all companies that contract with the state to sign a pledge promising not to boycott Israel.
The Tuesday dismissal reverses a lower court decision that had rendered the law unconstitutional, ending efforts to overturn one of many state laws that had been crafted in opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel. As in most of its denials, the Supreme Court did not provide a reason why it declined to take up the case.
The case had pitted the Arkansas Times, an independent alt-weekly publication, against the former chairman of the University of Arkansas. Under state law, all companies seeking to do business with Arkansas state entities must sign a pledge promising not to engage in any Israel boycotts. The Arkansas Times does not boycott Israel, but had refused to sign the pledge. That refusal led one of the university system’s affiliates to end an advertising agreement with the Arkansas Times, prompting the publication to sue.
Arkansas’ law is one of several nationwide that restrict business with companies that boycott Israel or refuse to sign anti-boycott pledges. These laws largely sprang up amid the growth of the BDS movement and have been criticized by progressive groups as well as by First Amendment advocates.
Federal courts have struck down similar state laws in the past, but last year, a federal appeals court ruled that such laws are not unconstitutional because financial regulations should be considered “noncommunicative” speech. The Supreme Court’s rejection of the Arkansas case is likewise a promising development for the so-called anti-BDS legal strategy.
Tuesday’s decision was celebrated by pro-Israel groups including the American Jewish Committee and the Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law, which had filed briefs on behalf of Arkansas in lower court decisions.
“The Supreme Court has confirmed our view that state statutes opposing BDS are indeed constitutional,” AJC General Counsel Marc Stern said in a statement. “The primary aim of the BDS movement is to eliminate the State of Israel. The court’s action gives a boost to efforts to put a stop to the pernicious effort to isolate Israel economically and morally.”
Brandeis Center founder Kenneth Marcus said in a statement, “Anti-Israel boycotts will now be seen for what they are: discriminatory conduct rather than political speech.”
Alan Leveritt, publisher of the Arkansas Times, said in a statement that he was “disappointed” with the court’s decision. “Permitting state governments to withhold state contracts from citizens who voice opinions contrary to those held by a majority of their state legislators is abhorrent and a violation of the Bill of Rights,” he wrote.
Leveritt added that his paper had “zero interest” in getting involved in Israel politics, and that it had been opposing the law on free-speech grounds. It was backed in its legal battle by the American Civil Liberties Union and progressive Jewish groups including T’ruah and J Street, as well as by the rabbi of Arkansas’ largest Jewish congregation, who said the state had not consulted with its Jewish population when it drafted the law.
Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, criticized Jewish groups that celebrated the court’s ruling. She tweeted that AJC and others like it “are celebrating a court ruling that undermines Americans’ right to boycott ANYTHING as a matter of protest/conscience.”
Friedman recently authored a memo arguing that anti-BDS laws were being used as templates for other state laws dealing with different kinds of boycotts, including against the firearms and fossil fuel industries, as well as in state-level efforts to reduce the growing trend of environmental, social and corporate governance investing.
“This is a missed opportunity but not a ruling on the merits of the case,” tweeted documentary filmmaker Julia Bacha, whose new film “Boycott” tracks the Arkansas Times’ legal battle. “The fight to protect boycotts continue[s].”
—
The post Supreme Court upholds Arkansas state law that prohibits contractors from boycotting Israel appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Jewish hockey star Jack Hughes’ overtime goal propels US to historic gold medal in Olympic hockey
(JTA) — Jewish hockey star Jack Hughes scored the game-winning goal Sunday to clinch a gold medal for the U.S. men’s hockey team, its first since 1980.
The New Jersey Devils star center, who had scored twice in Team USA’s semifinal win, sent the puck between the legs of Canadian goaltender Jordan Binnington 1:41 into overtime to give the American team a 2-1 win.
“This is all about our country right now. I love the USA,” Hughes told NBC. “I love my teammates.”
The win broke a 46-year Olympic drought for Team USA, which had not taken gold since the famous “Miracle on Ice” team that upset the Soviet Union on its way to gold in 1980. The United States also won in 1960.
“He’s a freaking gamer,” Quinn Hughes, Jack’s older brother and U.S. teammate said, according to The Athletic. “He’s always been a gamer. Just mentally tough, been through a lot, loves the game. American hero.”
Quinn Hughes is a defender for the Minnesota Wild and a former captain of the Vancouver Canucks who won the NHL’s top defenseman award in 2024. He was also named the best defender in the Olympic tournament by the International Ice Hockey Federation after scoring an overtime goal to send the U.S. team to the semifinals.
The third Jewish member of the U.S. team, Boston Bruins goaltender Jeremy Swayman, won the one game he played, a Feb. 14 preliminary-round victory over Denmark.
The Hughes family — rounded out by youngest brother Luke, who also plays for the Devils — has long been lauded as a Jewish hockey dynasty. They are the first American family to have three siblings picked in the first round of the NHL draft, and Jack was the first Jewish player to go No. 1 overall. They are also the first trio of Jewish brothers to play in the same NHL game and the first brothers to earn cover honors for EA Sports’ popular hockey video game.
Jack, who had a bar mitzvah, has said his family celebrated Passover when he was growing up. Their mother, Ellen Weinberg-Hughes, who is Jewish, represented the U.S. women’s hockey team at the 1992 Women’s World Championships and was on the coaching staff of the gold-medal-winning women’s team in Milan. Weinberg-Hughes is also a member of the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame.
Hughes’ golden goal ushered in a burst of Jewish pride on social media, with one user calling it “the greatest Jewish sports moment of all time.” The Hockey News tweeted that Hughes was “the first player in hockey history to have a Bar Mitzvah and a Golden Goal! Pretty cool!”
Jewish groups and leaders also jumped on the praise train. “Special shout out to @jhugh86 on scoring the game-winning goal!” tweeted Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. “Beyond his incredible skill on the ice, Jack makes history as a proud representative of the American Jewish community, reminding us that the Jewish people are interwoven into America in her 250th year! Mazel Tov, Jack!”
The post Jewish hockey star Jack Hughes’ overtime goal propels US to historic gold medal in Olympic hockey appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran and US Views on Sanctions Relief Differ, Iranian Official Tells Reuters
Iranian women walk past an anti-US billboard in Tehran, Iran, February 19, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Iran and the United States have differing views over sanctions relief in talks to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Sunday, adding that new talks were planned in early March as fears of a military confrontation grow.
Iran and the US renewed negotiations earlier this month to tackle their decades-long dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program as the US builds up its military capability in the Middle East, fueling fears of a wider war.
Iran has threatened to strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces.
“The last round of talks showed that US ideas regarding the scope and mechanism of sanctions relief differ from Iran’s demands. Both sides need to reach a logical timetable for lifting sanctions,” the official said.
“This roadmap must be reasonable and based on mutual interests.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Friday that he expected to have a draft counterproposal ready within days, while US President Donald Trump said he was considering limited military strikes.
READINESS TO COMPROMISE
While rejecting a US demand for “zero enrichment” – a major sticking point in past negotiations – Tehran has signaled its readiness to compromise on its nuclear work.
Washington views enrichment inside Iran as a potential pathway to nuclear weapons. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and wants its right to enrich uranium to be recognized.
Washington has also demanded that Iran relinquish its stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The UN nuclear agency last year estimated that stockpile at more than 440 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60% fissile purity, a small step away from the 90% that is considered weapons grade.
The Iranian official said Tehran could seriously consider a combination of exporting part of its HEU stockpile, diluting the purity of its most highly enriched uranium and the establishment of a regional enrichment consortium in exchange for the recognition of Iran’s right to “peaceful nuclear enrichment.”
“The negotiations continue and the possibility of reaching an interim agreement exists,” he said.
BENEFITS FOR BOTH SIDES
Iranian authorities have said that a diplomatic solution delivers economic benefits for both Tehran and Washington.
“Within the economic package under negotiation, the United States has also been offered opportunities for serious investment and tangible economic interests in Iran’s oil industry,” the official said.
However, he said Tehran will not hand over control of its oil and mineral resources.
“Ultimately, the US can be an economic partner for Iran, nothing more. American companies can always participate as contractors in Iran’s oil and gas fields.”
Uncategorized
Mike Huckabee’s Comments to Tucker Carlson on Israel and Middle East Land Draw Condemnation in Region
Tucker Carlson speaks on first day of AmericaFest 2025 at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona, Dec. 18, 2025. Photo: Charles-McClintock Wilson/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Comments by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggesting that Israel had a biblical right to much of the Middle East drew condemnation over the weekend from countries across the region, who called his remarks “dangerous and inflammatory.”
Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, has been a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his political career and a longtime defender of Jewish settlements in the West Bank – land which the Palestinians seek for a state.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson that was conducted on Wednesday in Israel and aired on Friday, the populist US talk show host asked Huckabee about Israel’s right to exist and about Jewish roots in the ancient land.
Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said:
“It would be fine if they took it all. But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”
Huckabee added: “We’re talking about this land that the state of Israel now lives in and wants to have peace in, they’re not trying to take over Jordan, they’re not trying to take over Syria, they’re not trying to take over Iraq or anywhere else. They want to protect their people.”
In response, a joint statement condemning Huckabee’s comments was issued by the Palestinians and countries in the Middle East and beyond, including Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan.
They said his comments were: “Dangerous and inflammatory remarks, which constitute a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and pose a grave threat to the security and stability of the region.”
A US Embassy spokesperson said Huckabee’s comments did not reflect any change in US policy and that his full remarks made clear that Israel has no desire to change its current boundaries.
Israeli officials did not immediately comment on the interview or the reaction from countries that signed the joint statement.