Last week, I spoke to Josh Halpern, a research fellow and lecturer at Harvard Law School, regarding the constitutionality of state-level legislation designed to curb the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign.

In his recently published paper, “Boycotts: A First Amendment History,” Halpern argues that contemporary anti-BDS laws are compatible with the tradition of regulating boycotts that dates back to the early republic.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to the Arkansas Times, a periodical based in Little Rock that challenged the state’s anti-BDS statute’s constitutionality. The Arkansas Times was appealing an en banc Eighth Circuit decision that upheld the law. I asked Halpern about this in a follow-up interview.

The Supreme Court was right to deny cert in the Arkansas case. Contemporary anti-BDS laws are consistent with a storied tradition of boycott regulation that traces back to the Founding. The states are entitled to legislate against anti-Israel discrimination, and they certainly have no affirmative obligation to subsidize it through public contracts and state investment funds.

Halpern is right. Anti-BDS laws are consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the First Amendment. While this Supreme Court decision was narrow, it is nonetheless a victory for those fighting the pernicious influence of BDS.