California

An act to add Article 9 (commencing with Section 60160) to Chapter 1 of Part 33 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, relating to pupil instruction.

An act to add Section 8310.4 to the Government Code, relating to state and local government.

An act to amend Sections 244, 262.3, 48980, 51500, 51501, and 60151 of, to add Section 60152 to, to add Article 11 (commencing with Section 280) to Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 1 of, and to add Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 33800) to Part 20 of Division 2 of Title 2 of, the Education Code, relating to education.

This anti-boycott law prohibits state contracts with entities that apply political boycotts in a discriminatory manner. Contractors bidding on or renewing contracts of $100,000 or more must provide written certification that they are in compliance with pre-existing California anti-discrimination laws and that any policy they have against a sovereign nation or peoples, “including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel,” is not used to discriminate in violation of those anti-discrimination laws. Boycotts for Palestinian rights based on an entity’s complicity in Israel’s violations do not discriminate against a protected class and thus fall outside the scope of the bill. However, the lawmakers who put forward these bills have stated their intent to exclude individuals and companies engaged in boycotts for Palestinian rights from state contracts. 

Since it was first introduced, AB 2844 was rewritten several times. Called the “California Combating the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israel Act of 2016,” earlier versions of AB 2844 blacklisted and prohibited state contracts with companies participating in a boycott of Israel. The bill was whittled down following pressure from grassroots activists and after civil rights groups raised concerns that it unconstitutionally punished political speech.

An act to add Title 23 (commencing with Section 3273.72) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, relating to social media platforms.

Overview: SB 771 would have exposed social media platforms to civil liability based on how their algorithms distribute user-generated content, even when that content is lawful and constitutionally protected. Though framed as a response to online harm, the bill created a broad liability regime that incentivized censorship, surveillance, and viewpoint discrimination.

Significance: SB 771 would have pressured platforms to suppress lawful political speech to avoid massive legal exposure. Arab, Muslim, Palestinian, and other communities whose advocacy is frequently mischaracterized as hate speech would have faced heightened censorship—particularly speech related to Palestine, Zionism, and international human rights.

Outcome: Following sustained advocacy from ADC and a diverse coalition of civil liberties, community, business, and technology stakeholders, SB 771 was vetoed. The veto prevents California from becoming a testing ground for policies that criminalize digital dissent and undermine constitutional protections.

Bottom Line: The veto of SB 771 is a critical victory for free expression, civil liberties, and the right to political advocacy online. California must pursue approaches to online harm that protect marginalized voices and uphold constitutional law—not liability regimes that silence dissent.

AB 1552 is an anti-boycott bill prohibiting state contracts unless contractors provide a written certification that they are not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in “the boycott of a person or entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with which the state can enjoy open trade.” This bill excludes contracts whose total value is less than $10,000 and those that bid at least 20% less than other bidders. Because AB 1552 only applies to boycotts undertaken on a discriminatory basis, boycotts for Palestinian rights fall outside its scope. Despite this and the fact that Israel is not explicitly referenced, the lawmakers who put forward this bill have stated their intent to exclude individuals and companies engaged in boycotts for Palestinian rights from state contracts. 

AB 1551 is an anti-boycott bill that prohibits the investment of state funds, including state retirement funds, in businesses and financial institutions engaged in “discriminatory business practices in furtherance of or in compliance with” politically-motivated boycotts of Israel or territories occupied by Israel. To identify entities engaged in prohibited boycotts, the bill requires the state to rely on a federal report on BDS activities, but no such report existed at the time this bill was introduced. AB 1551 absolves a financial institution or business from the bill’s investment ban if the entity’’s governing body adopts prescribed language promising not to renew, expand, or engage in prohibited practices. 

This measure would, among other things, reaffirm California’s commitment to universal human rights and call for the end to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the immediate release of all hostages.

This non-binding resolution offers the city council’s support for state legislation, AB 2844. The bill, titled at the time of this resolution, the California Combating the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israel Act of 2016, was rewritten several times and whittled down following pressure from grassroots activists and after civil rights groups raised concerns that it unconstitutionally punished political speech.

This non-binding resolution offers the city council’s support for any administrative action that would ban or cancel the National Students for Justice in Palestine Conference from being held on UCLA’s campus. The resolution cites the IHRA’s distorted definition of antisemitism and falsely accuses NSJP of violence in support of its call for censorship. The NSJP Conference went forward as planned. 

This non-binding resolution expresses the city council’s opposition to student activist efforts calling on candidates for undergraduate student government at UCLA to sign a pledge to not take trips to Israel that are sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The resolutions claims that students who refused to sign the pledge were the subject of bullying tactics and intimidation. It states that these efforts do “not concern a policy issue relevant to the University” and calls on the University of California (UC) Board of Regents and President of the UC system to take additional action to stop such efforts.