Arizona Gov. Hobbs vetoes antisemitism bill, citing 'attack' on public schools
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that would have allowed students and their parents to sue K-12 and university teachers and potentially make them pay damages for teaching or promoting antisemitism.
Hobbs announced the veto of House Bill 2867 in a letter June 10. In it, she said the bill was "not about antisemitism" but rather, "it's about attacking our teachers. It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits."
She rebuked the Legislature, writing, "It is disappointing to yet again see this Legislature single out and attack our public education system."
The governor said despite the veto, she continues to stand with the Jewish community against hate and remains "committed to fighting antisemitism in all its forms." Students who experience antisemitism in the classroom already can report unprofessional conduct to the State Board of Education, Hobbs said.
She said she was "confident that by using those tools, we can fulfill our moral and legal responsibility to eradicate hate and discrimination in our public school system."
Hobbs also pointed to several Jewish groups that opposed the bill, including the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, the Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center and the Rabbi Joseph H. Gumbiner Community Action Project.
HB 2867 would have prohibited teachers, administrators, contractors and volunteers at K-12 public schools and public or private universities from: teaching or promoting antisemitism; requiring students to advocate for anti-Semitic points of view; and receiving professional development "in any antisemitism" that creates a "discriminatory" or "hostile" environment.
The proposal provoked concern from public-school advocates about exacerbating the teacher shortage and had raised red flags about First Amendment violations due to what the proposed law considered "antisemitism."
The Arizona Education Association, the main teachers' union in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona had urged Hobbs, a Democrat, to veto the bill.
The teacher's union said the bill "weaponizes legitimate concerns about antisemitism to attack public education" by stripping teachers of professional liability protections. The ACLU said it would "chill the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, speakers and administrators" and target those who criticized Israel.
The bill included specific examples of speech the state would have prohibited, which a Federal District Court in Texas said amounted to "viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment" when used to punish university students.
Arizona's bill mostly applied to teachers, but one provision targeted university student groups — a fact First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh said was "pretty clearly unconstitutional."
Supporters of the bill, such as sponsor Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, said it was needed because existing anti-discrimination laws "either weren't clear enough or didn't contain the necessary enforcement mechanism to address this problem."
Rep. Alma Hernandez, a Democrat from Tucson and co-sponsor of the bill, was another vocal proponent of the legislation.
Neither she nor Way immediately responded to requests for comment regarding Hobbs' veto.
Could teachers be sued? Under a bill on Hobbs' desk, Ariz. teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom
Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com. Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@arizonarepublic.com or by phone at 480-476-6116.
Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona Gov. Hobbs says antisemitism bill an 'attack' on schools
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump and Netanyahu defied the diplomats — and saved the free world
The world was sleepwalking toward disaster. Again. Just like in the 1930s, a fanatical regime made its intentions crystal clear: Wipe the Jewish people off the map, destroy Western influence and dominate an entire region through terror and ideology. And just like in the 1930s, the so-called 'international community' looked the other way. Advertisement Except this time, two leaders didn't. Donald J. Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu refused to play dumb. They didn't beg. They didn't blink. And they didn't apologize. They acted. Advertisement Because Iran — the world's No. 1 terror regime — was on the brink of going nuclear. Let that sink in: A regime that burns American flags, funds terrorists across four continents, murders women in the streets for not covering their hair, and chants 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' was about to get the bomb. And the usual crowd of diplomats and talking heads said: Let's be patient. Let's negotiate. Let's wait. Six B-2 Stealth Bombers dropped 12 bunker-buster bombs on the Fordow nuclear site. Rob Jejenich / NY Post Design Advertisement Sound familiar? That's exactly what Europe said to Adolf Hitler. We all know how that ended. But this time, history didn't repeat itself — because Trump and Netanyahu made sure of it. They didn't wait for another Munich. They acted before the mushroom cloud. Advertisement Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters And thank God they did. Make no mistake: Iran with nukes would be far worse than Nazi Germany. Same genocidal hatred. Same dream of world domination. But this time, with 21st-century weapons. If the ayatollahs had gotten there first, no one would have been safe — not in Tel Aviv, not in New York, not anywhere. Every terror group in the world would have felt untouchable under Iran's nuclear umbrella. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a statement during a visit to the site of the Weizmann Institute of Science, which was hit by an Iranian missile barrage, in the central city of Rehovot on June 20, 2025. POOL/AFP via Getty Images Instead, in a matter of hours, Iran's nuclear dreams turned to dust. Advertisement And with it, so did the illusion that this regime can be 'contained' or 'reformed.' Let's be real: You don't negotiate with fanatics who want to kill you. You stop them. That's what real leadership looks like. Advertisement Not fancy speeches. Not hollow threats. Action. Of course, the critics are losing their minds. They say it was reckless. They say it might provoke Iran. News flash: Iran's been provoking the world for decades. The regime in Tehran has been attacking oil tankers, launching rockets at civilians, sending drones to hit US bases. Advertisement The real danger wasn't action. The real danger was doing nothing. Trump and Netanyahu weren't willing to wait and see. They pulled the handbrake before the train went off the cliff. We may never know how many lives they saved. How many cities they protected. How many wars they prevented. But we should all know this: Without them, we'd be living in a far more dangerous world today. Advertisement They changed the game. And they proved that when you stand up to evil — instead of appeasing it — you can actually win. The free world owes them a debt of gratitude. Dan Illouz is a Member of the Israeli Knesset for the Likud Party.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
A US Golden Dome would be a geopolitical game changer
In May, President Trump announced plans for a Golden Dome missile defense system, a multi-layered system designed to ward off ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles launched against North America. It is estimated to cost $175 billion and will take three years to deploy, according to Trump. The cost and schedule, as with all such projects, is subject to change. The name Golden Dome is inspired by the Israeli Iron Dome, part of the Jewish state's anti-missile defense system that has blunted, though not entirely stopped, attacks from its various enemies, most recently Iran. But the idea of a space-based missile defense system has its roots in the Strategic Defense Initiative, proposed over 40 years ago by then-President Ronald Reagan. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was controversial. Some opponents derided it by calling it 'Star Wars.' The project never evolved beyond a technological development program for two reasons. First, the technology to launch and coordinate satellites that could track and destroy incoming nuclear-tipped missiles did not exist and was too hard to develop in the 1980s. Second, the Cold War ended, and so did the immediate threat of global thermonuclear war. The need for the Strategic Defense Initiative simply evaporated. Fast forward more than 30 years. Although some ground-based and sea-based missile defense systems have been deployed to ward off attacks by rogue states such as North Korea, defense against attacks by near-peer nations such as Russia and China is woefully inadequate. This has complicated efforts to restrain Russia's efforts to annex Ukraine and China's wish to invade Taiwan. Both conflicts have the potential to spiral out of control into a nuclear exchange, impeding American foreign policy choices. Golden Dome, like the proposed Strategic Defense Initiative and the Israeli missile defense system, will be a multi-layered system that will cover boost phase, mid-range and then terminal phase. The idea is that it will stop a nuclear strike by shooting down missiles in each phase so that nothing reaches its intended target. Will the Golden Dome work? Some have raised doubts. The American Physical Society has released a study listing what it feels are the problems facing a space-based missile defense system. Many of the objections are the same that were raised during the Strategic Defense Initiative era — the problem with decoys, for example. The study falls short of concluding that missile defense is impossible. On the other hand, technology related to missile defense has greatly advanced since the 1980s. Launching payloads into space, thanks to Elon Musk's SpaceX, is far cheaper and more reliable now than when the space shuttle was state of the art. Artificial intelligence, battlespace awareness, communications and even beam weapons (i.e., lasers) are at levels that would have seemed like science fiction during the Strategic Defense Initiative era. Evidence that the Golden Dome will be a game changer is that the Chinese don't like it. Fox News quotes Chinese Foreign Minister Mao Ning as saying, 'The project will heighten the risk of turning space into a war zone and creating a space arms race, and shake the international security and arms control system. We urge the U.S. to give up developing and deploying global anti-missile system.' The Chinese are suggesting, perhaps inadvertently, that they are afraid of the Golden Dome. Any attempt to overcome it would complicate its grand strategy of supplanting the U.S. as the supreme superpower on the planet. The flaw in the analysis that purports to attack the idea of missile defense is economic. One can talk about decoys, stealth technology and maneuverable launch vehicles as ways to penetrate a missile defense system like Golden Dome. But developing and deploying such technologies costs money. Russia, the other near-peer nuclear power, is already stretched to the limit because of Putin's adventure in Ukraine. China, because of its fragile, export-based economy, the cost of its military buildup and declining population, also faces economic limitations. The U.S., on the other hand, has potential for enough economic growth to not only engage in an arms race in space but to prevail. Israel's missile defense system has allowed between 5 percent and 10 percent of Iranian missiles to get through. Israel has absorbed the damage from high-explosive-tipped missiles. In a nuclear exchange, Golden Dome must stop 100 percent of an attack. Nevertheless, Israel's recent experience is a strong argument for the Golden Dome. The fulfillment of Reagan's dream of a world in which nuclear weapons have become 'impotent and obsolete' will be a formidable task. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. considers scrapping religious exemptions for vaccinations
Advertisement In Massachusetts, parents can write a letter stating that a vaccine conflicts with their 'sincerely held religious belief' in order to exempt their children from vaccination requirements needed to enroll in public schools. State Rep. Andy Vargas and State Sen. Edward Kennedy both Advocates who oppose the exemptions say that religious exceptions are being misused by parents who are hesitant about vaccinating their children. Advertisement 'It's definitely a general pattern of people abusing the exemption, especially since But parents across the state came to Beacon Hill to testify in support of religious exemptions at a hearing of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Health. They said exemptions were essential to their first amendment right to practice their religion and to honor the concept of informed consent. 'I'm curious why diversity, equity and inclusion is not being applied to those with sincerely held religious beliefs,' Lisa Ottaviano said while testifying at the hearing. Some speakers at the hearing said they were uncomfortable with the components of certain vaccines. 'We should not be forced into violating our moral conscience by injecting products developed from aborted fetuses such as the MMR, the varicella vaccines,' said Nicholas Kottenstette, a Catholic father of four from Sterling, Massachusetts. Vaccines don't contain fetal cells, Others testifying against the bill said they wanted to protect religious exemptions because they felt that accountability measures for vaccine manufacturers were insufficient. 'I started meeting more people whose children had reactions to vaccines that were adverse, so I started doing my own research and learnt a lot of concerning things like how pharmaceutical companies have legal protection against being sued,' Maureen Trettel, a grandmother from Milford said. Advertisement Similar bills have been filed in previous sessions, so the debate over religious exemptions for vaccines in Massachusetts has been going on since at least 2019, well before the COVID-19 pandemic that made vaccines a polarizing issue. The elevation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic, to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services has drawn even more interest to the issue. Last week, Kennedy Logan Beyer, an aspiring pediatrician pursuing an MD/PhD degree in public health at Harvard, spoke in favor of eliminating religious exemptions. While volunteering at a Special Olympics event, Beyer spoke to a parent who told her that she was worried that vaccines caused autism. The mother told Beyer that she was planning to apply for a religious exemption because she was unsure about vaccinating her children. 'She told me that her family 'didn't really go to church' but you don't have to prove anything to get the exemption,' Beyer said. Beyer said that this incident made her concerned about growing vaccine hesitancy and inspired her to testify. 'At the hearing, so many parents said they just want to do what's best for their children … I love that instinct,' Beyer said, 'But I know that passing policies that help facilitate more kids getting vaccinated is really what can keep children safe.' Advertisement Harrison, mother of cancer-survivor Miranda, also understands the instinct of parents on the other side of the issue, even if she disagrees with them. In addition to Miranda, Harrison has twin six-year old boys who both have autism. 'I can know the grief and shock that parents experience when they find out their kid has autism. I get it,' Harrison said. 'But vaccines are not to blame ... autism is a result of Around 16,000 children in Massachusetts are unvaccinated without claiming an exemption — a group that the state describes as 'noncompliant students' in its documents. Many parents in opposition to the bills questioned why the bills were trained just on the 2,000 students who did have religious exemptions. 'I'm curious why the Legislature is targeting the small percentage of children with religious exemptions and ignoring the huge gap population,' said Ottaviano testifying at the hearing. Advocates for the bills said the new provisions that mandate that all schools must report vaccination numbers to the state's department of public health would address these noncompliant students as well. 'That's what the data reporting is about, we want to make sure that schools have accurate records,' Blair of Massachusetts Families for Vaccines said. 'If there is a gap … they should reach out to those students to find out why the records are not on file.' Speakers in favor of the bills were focused on eliminating religious exemptions in order to protect children who cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons like allergies or problems with their immune systems. 'It's actually those people … that we're really doing this for, because they're the ones who depend on herd immunity,' Blair said. Advertisement Angela Mathew can be reached at
