California teachers warn antisemitism statute will chill classroom speech

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — California teachers and parents told a federal judge Wednesday the definition of antisemitism under a recently enacted law is vague, and its enforcement starting next month would harm teachers’ constitutional rights if they are not allowed to discuss different viewpoints regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict during instruction.

U.S. District Court Judge Noël Wise heard arguments for a preliminary injunction motion to stop the enforcement of a section of California Assembly Bill 715, signed into law in October, which creates a new Office of Civil Rights and an antisemitism prevention coordinator within the office to be appointed by the governor.

A group of California teachers and parents filed a lawsuit in November to stop the controversial law from taking effect Jan. 1, 2026.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Jenin Younes, national legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the law could lead to more teachers being penalized for providing different viewpoints about the conflict in the Middle East, including the genocide of the Palestinian people and the perspective of Israel as a settler-colonial nation.

Younes said the inability for teachers to discuss different perspectives about the Israel-Palestine conflict without fear of punishment by the state would have a chilling effect, leading to less classroom discussion and violating teachers’ First Amendment rights.

“I would be remiss to not say there is a hot debate happening across the country about what constitutes antisemitism,” Younes said.

Younes claimed the definitions of antisemitism under former President Joe Biden’s national strategy — referenced by AB 715 as “a basis” for California’s Department of Education to use while enforcing the new law — could label any criticism of Zionism or Israel as possible discriminatory language actionable for discipline.

Younes said teachers not only have a right to discuss different viewpoints in the classroom, but they also have an obligation to give the fullest depiction regarding current events and history.

“Teachers are not government mouthpieces,” she said. “We should allow students to reach their own determinations.”

Wise, who gave both parties a set of questions to answer prior to the hearing, grilled Younes about the phrase “a basis” in the bill’s language. The judge suggested that teachers, and school districts more generally, could reference different sources for a better understanding of what may constitute antisemitism, although she acknowledged the current national confusion about what it may or may not entail.

“I am not trying to have a political discussion about this,” the Joe Biden appointee said. “What right does a public school teacher have in this context?”

“The law isn’t entirely clear,” Younes said, pointing to her argument of vagueness and the need to halt the enforcement of the statute.

Defense attorney Andrew Edelstein, representing California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Superintendent Tony Thurmond and Governor Gavin Newsom, argued that public teachers do not have First Amendment rights in the classroom.

Edelstein said the definition of antisemitism in the national strategy document was based on one given by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance: “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” and may include “denying Jews self-determination” — which can be interpreted broadly, Younes argued, as anti-Israel.

Regarding the possible chilling effect Younes described, Wise asked Edelstein, “What are teachers to do?” Edelstein answered that it was up to the school district to make individual determinations regarding disciplining teachers who, under the statute, use discriminatory speech in the classroom.

Edelstein also argued the lawsuit was not ripe, noting the Office of Civil Rights has not yet been staffed, including the antisemitism prevention coordinator.

The statute, according to Rachel Lederman with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, “opens the door and encourages more complaints against teachers,” she said. “I hope the judge will strike the statute down.”

Edelstein declined to comment after the hearing.

“Teachers by and large have legitimate serious concerns,” Wise said. “It is difficult for the court to draw lines around what a teacher and a student can do in the classroom.”

Wise said she had great respect for all teachers and the need for students to have “thoughtful and fulsome” understanding of current issues and told the court she would be “mindful” of timing about whether to order an injunction.

“You’ve given me a lot to think about,” she said.