Federal judge rejects injunction to block new law on antisemitism in California 

A federal court judge in San Jose has denied a preliminary injunction that four teachers and others sought to stop a new state law intended to blunt rising antisemitism in California public schools. 

The teachers argued that the new law will chill their right to teach the Palestinian perspective of the conflict in Gaza and the Middle East.

As a result of U.S. District Judge Noël Wise’s 22-page ruling on Wednesday, Assembly Bill 715 went into effect Jan. 1.

That will not be the end of the lawsuit, however. Jenin Younes, attorney for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which represented the plaintiffs, stated in an email, “We will almost certainly appeal” the denial to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. 

Regardless of that outcome, a full trial on the merits of the lawsuit to overturn the new law will follow. Wise has scheduled a meeting for Jan. 27 with attorneys to determine the next steps. 

A key element of the case is a fundamental question: To what extent does the state’s right to regulate what is taught in public schools limit a teacher’s freedom of expression in the classroom? 

Wise ruled that the answer was clear-cut. Agreeing with the position of state Attorney General Rob Bonta, she wrote, “Teacher Plaintiffs do not have First Amendment rights while teaching, so they cannot bring a claim alleging the infringement of those rights.”

What’s in the law

AB 715 would reinforce current anti-discrimination laws that ban biased and inaccurate instruction, materials and discriminatory school activities based on race, religion, gender and nationality.

California laws already require investigations into incidents of discrimination. AB 715 adds discriminatory “professional development materials and curriculum” to the list, and establishes a separate Office of Civil Rights outside the Department of Education with an antisemitism prevention coordinator who would develop antisemitism resources and strategies.

The backdrop for the law, as stated in AB 715’s preamble, is a widespread surge of antisemitic “discrimination, harassment, and bullying, including the use of inappropriate instructional materials and instruction,” that “has deeply impacted Jewish pupils across California and the nation.” 

The two-plus-year conflict in Gaza killed more than 1,200 people in Israel and has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians, heightening tensions in classrooms throughout the state. The California Department of Education has a backlog of complaints by Jewish families about what they say are one-sided, biased instruction about the conflict. The department, in a recent finding, verified complaints of antisemitism in the Oakland Unified School District.

The teacher plaintiffs include middle and high school teachers, one of whom is Jewish, from Berkeley, Santa Clara and Adelanto who have taught about the conflicts in Gaza and the Middle East. They argue that AB 715 will lead to confusion by conflating criticism of Israel’s policies with antisemitism. Its failure to define antisemitism makes the entire bill unconstitutionally vague, their brief said. It would create uncertainty, leading to teachers’ self-censorship out of fear of discipline and lengthy investigations. The lead plaintiff, Andrea Pritchett, a middle school U.S. history teacher in the Berkeley Unified School District, said she faced an investigation when she linked Israeli occupation of Palestine to colonialism in her classroom.

“Teachers must have leeway to do their jobs to encourage open discourse that is important for creating a learning environment,” Younes, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said during oral arguments last month in San Jose.

However, Wise concluded that Younes failed to show that AB 715 would substantially change the existing sanctions for bias and discrimination. There’s no evidence, Wise wrote, that the law’s “forceful” warnings about the dangers of antisemitism will lead public school administrators to determine that “more antisemitism complaints are meritorious.”

Wise concluded it would be premature to grant a preliminary injunction based on fears about what might happen, since the Office of Civil Rights isn’t operating yet and the antisemitism coordinator has yet to be appointed. But even if the fears could be substantiated, Wise found that the plaintiffs’ arguments had “fatal deficiencies” and would unlikely succeed on the merits.

Wise acknowledged “the tension inherent in balancing the competing interests” of teachers to encourage learning and government to determine what is taught — whether by local school boards, the Legislature or the State Board of Education. She cited a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case (Kennedy V. Bremerton School District) that referenced a famous earlier decision: Neither teachers nor students “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,”  then added, “Yet, the Court has never suggested that the speech rights of public school employees are so boundless that they may deliver any message to anyone anytime they wish.” 

Wise concluded, after reviewing previous decisions by the 9th Circuit, that the plaintiff teachers’ lessons on Gaza and Palestine are “no different than lessons presented under any government-regulated curricula: when a teacher stands before a classroom imparting those lessons, that teacher speaks with the voice of the government.”

In a footnote, Wise elaborated on the “appropriate” role of government, noting that plaintiffs, in their brief, “dig deeper into politically controversial content,” … stating, “(M)ost international human rights organizations have concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, but some pro-Israel Jewish individuals find that offensive and antisemitic.”

Wise wrote: “These are intensely charged issues that may cause fractures among teachers, students, and parents. It is therefore appropriate that the Government thoughtfully chooses how best, if at all, to address these topics.”  

In a Jan. 1 statement, the American Jewish Committee, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, welcomed Wise’s decision.

“We are grateful for today’s ruling,” said Seth Brysk, AJC Northern California director. “Now schools must ensure they comply with these nondiscrimination mandates.”

Responding to the ruling on Friday, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office stated, “The Attorney General’s Office is committed to defending California laws. We’re pleased with the court’s decision.”

President Biden’s policy is at issue

Along with four teachers and the LA Educators for Justice in Palestine, the plaintiffs included three students who, their brief said, would be denied accurate information about issues in Gaza and Israel. Wise dismissed them from the case, stating “the subjective fear of an impending future violation — is too speculative to confer standing.”

The plaintiffs based much of their case on two references in AB 715 to the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism that President Joe Biden published in May 2023. It included the broad definition of antisemitism by the 31-nation International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that opponents said implies that criticism of Zionism could be viewed as antisemitic.

AB 715 states that the new antisemitism coordinator should use the Biden Strategy as one basis for deciding when conduct or instruction is antisemitic.

Wise disagreed with the plaintiffs that including the references to the Biden Strategy, with an inexact definition of antisemitism, made the entire bill unconstitutional. Even if the references were found unconstitutional, they could be removed, leaving the rest of the law intact.

The Legislative Jewish Caucus, and the bill’s two primary authors, Assemblymembers Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, and Rick Zbur, D-Hollywood, have agreed to consider “cleanup” language to AB 715 early in the 2026 legislative session.

Separately from the lawsuit, the California Teachers Association and opponents of AB 715 may seek to remove the references to the Biden Strategy, a major point of contention. However, having struggled for two years over a definition of antisemitism, the bill’s authors may resist removing that language.

This story has been updated to clarify the number of people killed in Israel.