,,iv  #aafth ,,congress  #ast ,session  
,h4 ,,res4 #dif  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of
 ,,representatives  ,july #af1 #bjai,ms4
 ,omar 7for herself1 ,ms4 ,tlaib1 and   
,mr4 ,lewis7 submitted the following    
resolution2 which was referred to the   
,committee on the ,judiciary            
,,resolution  ,affirming that all       
,americans have the right to participate
 in boycotts in pursuit of civil and    
human rights at home and abroad1 as     
protected by the ,first ,amendment to   
the ,constitution4  ,whereas boycotts   
have been effectively used in the       
,united ,states by advocates for equal  
rights since the ,boston ,tea ,party and
 include boycotts led by civil rights   
activists during the #aiejs and #aifjs  
in order to advocate for racial         
equality1 such as the ,montgomery bus   
boycott1 and promote workers' rights1   
such as the ,united ,farm ,workers-led  
boycott of table grapes2 ,whereas       
,americans of conscience have a proud   
history of participating in boycotts to 

advocate for human rights abroad1       
including--  7#a7 attempting to slow    
,japanese aggression in the ,pacific by 
boycotting ,imperial ,japan in #aicg and
 #aich2  7#b7 boycotting ,nazi ,germany 
from ,march #aicc to ,october #aida in  
response to the dehumanization of the   
,jewish people in the lead-up to the    
,holocaust2  7#c7 the ,united ,states   
,olympic ,committee boycotting the #aihj
 summer ,olympics in ,moscow in protest 
of the ,soviet invasion of ,afghanistan 
in the preceding year2 and  7#d7 leading
 the campaign in the #aihjs to boycott  
,south ,african goods in opposition to  
apartheid in that country2  ,whereas the
 ,supreme ,court1 in the #aiff case     
,rosenblatt v4 ,baer1 held that the     
,first ,amendment to the ,constitution  
ensures that criticism of government is 
at the very center of the               
constitutionally protected area of free 
discussion2 ,whereas the ,supreme ,court
 held in the #aihb case ,,naacp v4      
,claiborne ,hardware that the right of  

the ,states to regulate economic        
activity could not justify a complete   
prohibition against a nonviolent1       
politically motivated boycott ''' 42    
,whereas the ,supreme ,court has        
recognized various activities as        
expressive conduct warranting           
constitutional protection1 such as flag 
burning1 wearing black armbands1 silent 
sit-ins1 and creating and designing     
custom wedding cakes2 and ,whereas      
despite this tradition1 governments and 
nongovernmental organizations alike have
 sought to criminalize1 stigmatize1 and 
delegitimize the use of boycotts in an  
attempt to stifle constitutionally      
protected political expression3 ,now1   
therefore1 be it  ,that the ,house of   
,representatives-- 7#a7 affirms that all
 ,americans have the right to           
participate in boycotts in pursuit of   
civil and human rights at home and      
abroad1 as protected by the ,first      
,amendment to the ,constitution2  7#b7  
opposes unconstitutional legislative    

efforts to limit the use of boycotts to 
further civil rights at home and abroad2
 and  7#c7 urges ,congress1 ,states1 and
 civil rights leaders from all          
communities to endeavor to preserve the 
freedom of advocacy for all by opposing 
antiboycott resolutions and legislation4