Last week, New Hampshire became the 37th state to prohibit government contractors from boycotting the Jewish state. Opponents of such laws have labeled them an assault on freedom of speech, and in some cases have invidiously described them as requiring individuals and businesses to “sign a pro-Israel oath.” Eugene Volokh, a libertarian legal scholar, investigates the constitutionality of anti-boycott laws—and determines that they do not raise any First Amendment concerns:

Decisions not to buy or sell goods or services are generally not protected by the First Amendment. . . . Thus, for instance:

• A limousine driver has no First Amendment right to refuse to serve a same-sex wedding party, even if he describes this as a boycott of same-sex weddings (or part of a nationwide boycott of such weddings by likeminded citizens).
• A store has no First Amendment right to refuse to sell to Catholics, even if it describes this as a boycott of people who provide support for the Catholic Church.
• An employer in a jurisdiction that bans political-affiliation discrimination has no First Amendment right to refuse to hire Democrats, even if it describes such discrimination as a boycott.

Of course, all these people would have every right to speak out against same-sex weddings, Catholicism, the Democratic party, unions, and Israel. That would be speech, which is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

This lack of constitutional protection [for boycotts] simply reflects a well-established principle: the First Amendment does not generally protect liberty of contract, whether or not one’s choices about whom to deal with are political.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.