WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 617

Establishes State definition of antisemitism.

2026-2027 Regular Session Introduced by Bob Auth and 42 co-sponsors

New Jersey adopts a state-specific IHRA-based definition of antisemitism to guide education, training, and responses to incidents while protecting free speech and civil rights.

Introduced, Referred to Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 617

Summary: Bill A 617 (Session 222) – New Jersey Definition of Antisemitism

Overview

  • Jurisdiction: New Jersey
  • Bill: A 617
  • Purpose: Establishes a State-specific definition of antisemitism to guide education, training, and responses to antisemitic incidents, while preserving constitutional rights.
  • Status: Introduced January 13, 2026; referred to Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee.

Main Purpose and Intent

  • Recognize antisemitism as a persistent and harmful form of hatred affecting Jewish individuals and institutions.
  • Provide a defined framework (using the IHRA working definition and examples) to educate public officials, law enforcement, educators, and the public.
  • Inform responses to antisemitic incidents and shape public awareness campaigns about Jewish history, culture, and contributions.
  • Ensure the definition is applied in a manner compatible with First Amendment rights and existing anti-discrimination laws.

Key Provisions and Changes

1) Definition of Antisemitism

  • Defines antisemitism as a certain perception of Jews, which may manifest as hatred toward Jews, including both rhetorical and physical manifestations.
  • Applies to acts directed at:
    • Jewish or non-Jewish individuals
    • Jewish community institutions
    • Religious facilities

2) Contemporary Examples (Illustrative List)

The bill enumerates specific examples of antisemitic conduct, intended as training and guidance tools. Highlights include:
- Threats, endorsements, or acts of violence against Jews based on radical ideologies or religious extremism (and clarifies that criticism of individuals or policies unrelated to Jewish identity is not antisemitic).
- Dehumanizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews or Jewish influence (e.g., “Jewish control” tropes) while allowing legitimate, fact-based critiques of individuals or organizations not tied to Jewish identity.
- Collective blame of Jews for actions of individuals or groups, with allowances for holding individuals accountable if criticism is specific and not generalized to all Jews.
- Holocaust denial or distortion; including minimizing the genocide or denying its occurrence (with caveats that scholarly debate using evidence is not antisemitic).
- Accusations that Jews or Israel invented or exaggerate the Holocaust (with caveats for good-faith discussion of memorialization or education).
- Allegations of dual loyalty or disloyalty to the state of which a Jew is a citizen (and allowances for discussions of conflicts of interest in conduct).
- Denying Jewish self-determination or claiming Israel’s existence is racist (with allowances to critique Israeli policies without denying Israel’s right to exist).
- Applying double standards to Israel that are not applied to other democracies.
- Using classic antisemitic symbols or blood libel tropes to describe Israel or Jews.
- Drawing Nazi analogies to Israeli policy (when inappropriate) but permitting policy analysis without Nazi comparison.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel (with allowances for proportionate, non-generalizing critique of policy).

3) Uses and Applications

  • Training and education: To recognize and address antisemitism among public officials, law enforcement, and educators.
  • Incident response: To guide responses to antisemitic hate crimes targeting individuals or institutions.
  • Public awareness: To develop campaigns that combat antisemitism and promote Jewish history and culture.

4) Protections and Limitations

  • First Amendment protection: Nothing in the section shall restrict or penalize free speech or expression protected by the U.S. Constitution or New Jersey Constitution.
  • Contextual speech: Speech critical of Israel or its policies is not automatically antisemitic unless it includes language or actions defined as antisemitic by the bill.
  • Anti-discrimination alignment: Provisions do not conflict with existing anti-discrimination laws or regulations.

5) Legal Review in Enforcement

  • When reviewing or deciding violations of state or federal anti-bias laws, authorities should consider the bill’s definition and examples to assess whether alleged acts were motivated by antisemitic intent.

Timeline

  • Effective Date: 30 days after enactment.
  • Serves as a definitional tool to aid enforcement, education, and public policy related to antisemitism.

Who Is Affected

  • Public officials, law enforcement, educators, and state agencies involved in training, investigation, and policy development related to hate crimes and bias incidents.
  • Jewish individuals and institutions, including synagogues and Jewish community centers.
  • The broader public in New Jersey through education and awareness campaigns.

Practical Implications

  • Provides a state-level reference for recognizing antisemitism aligned with the IHRA framework.
  • Aims to improve consistency in identifying and responding to antisemitic incidents.
  • Balances antisemitism identification with robust protections for free speech and constitutional rights.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.