Florida Antisemitism Law: Is Criticizing Israel a Crime?

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Nov. 5, 2026 | Let’s kill the myth in the first paragraph. There is no Florida antisemitism law that makes it a crime to criticize Israel. There is no statute that sends you to jail for posting that Israel committed war crimes, that its prime minister is a liar, or that U.S. aid should be cut off. Zero. None. What Florida does have is a stack of three very real laws that keep getting mashed together online: a hate crime penalty enhancer (Section 775.085), a definition of antisemitism (Section 1.015), and a brand-new terrorist designation law (HB 1471). Each one does a different job. Blend them together and you get a speech ban that does not exist. Pull them apart, and you see exactly where the real legal fight is happening. Let’s untangle it.

The Myth: How Three Laws Became One Speech Ban

Scroll any platform this week and you will find some version of the same post: “Florida just made it illegal to criticize Israel.” It gets shared by people who are furious about it and by people who are cheering it. Both camps are reacting to a law that is not on the books.

Why does it feel plausible? Because the headlines have been loud and the bills have been real. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a statewide definition of antisemitism in 2024. He tried to label the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) a terrorist organization by executive order in December 2025. The Legislature then passed a law giving the state a formal designation process, and on Sept. 29, 2026, the governor and Cabinet used it. On Nov. 4, a federal judge let that designation stand. Stack all of that in a social media feed with no context and “Florida bans anti-Israel speech” is the lazy summary.

The statutes tell a different story. Here is what each one actually says, and what it does not.

Florida Hate Crime Law 775.085: An Enhancer, Not a Crime

Start with the one people call “the hate crime law.” Section 775.085 does not create a crime at all. You cannot be charged with “violating 775.085.” It is a penalty reclassification statute. It only matters after you have already committed some other crime, like battery, vandalism, or assault.

Here is how it works. If the underlying offense “evidences prejudice” based on the victim’s race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, homeless status, or advanced age (older than 65), the penalty jumps one full degree:

• Second-degree misdemeanor becomes a first-degree misdemeanor
• First-degree misdemeanor becomes a third-degree felony
• Third-degree felony becomes a second-degree felony
• Second-degree felony becomes a first-degree felony
• First-degree felony becomes a life felony

Real world: a simple battery, normally a first-degree misdemeanor, becomes a third-degree felony if prosecutors prove the attacker targeted the victim because the victim is Jewish. Or Christian. Or Muslim. That is the point people miss. The protected category is religion. Judaism is not singled out, and it is not given more protection than any other faith.

The statute also requires that the record show the defendant perceived, knew, or had reasonable grounds to know that the victim belonged to the protected class. And it carries a civil side: a person or group that proves by clear and convincing evidence that they were coerced, intimidated, or threatened in violation of the statute can sue for triple damages, an injunction, and attorney fees.

Stalder: The Case That Fenced It In

The single most important legal anchor here is a 1994 Florida Supreme Court decision, State v. Stalder, 630 So. 2d 1072. Defendants argued 775.085 punished people for their beliefs and their words. The court upheld the statute, but only by reading it narrowly. According to later appellate decisions applying it, Stalder limits 775.085 to “bias-motivated crimes,” meaning crimes where the perpetrator intentionally selects the victim because of a protected trait.

That narrowing is what saved the law from a First Amendment challenge, and it still controls today. Florida appeals courts have reversed enhanced sentences where the jury only found that a defendant expressed prejudice during a crime, without finding the crime was motivated by it. Bias does not have to be the only reason, but it has to drive the selection of the victim. Yelling slurs during a bar fight that started over something else is not automatically a hate crime under Florida law.

Bottom line on 775.085: no underlying crime, no enhancement. Words and beliefs alone never trigger it.

The History Detail Almost Everyone Gets Wrong

You will see posts claiming Florida “wrote antisemitism into its hate crime law.” It did not. In 2019, then-Rep. Randy Fine’s CS/CS/HB 741 (Chapter 2019-59) added a definition of anti-Semitism to Florida law, but the version that passed put it in Section 1000.05, the anti-discrimination statute for the K-20 public education system. It governs how schools and universities treat discrimination complaints. It is not a criminal statute.

Then in 2024, HB 187 created a separate, statewide definition in Chapter 1 of the Florida Statutes. Search the current text of 775.085 and you will not find the word “antisemitism” anywhere in it.

Florida Statute 1.015: The Definition With Guardrails

HB 187 was signed by DeSantis on June 24, 2024, as Chapter 2024-262, and took effect July 1, 2024. It created Section 1.015, which defines antisemitism based on the working definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Read this part slowly: 1.015 is a definition. It is not a crime. It carries no penalty. It does not, by itself, let anyone arrest, fine, or charge you for anything. The Legislature said its purpose is to help with monitoring and reporting antisemitic hate crimes and discrimination.

The core definition calls antisemitism a certain perception of Jewish individuals that may be expressed as hatred toward them, directed at Jewish and non-Jewish people, their property, and Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. The statute then lists eleven “contemporary examples.” In plain English, they include:

• Calling for or justifying harm to Jewish people
• Dehumanizing stereotypes about Jewish collective power, like a worldwide conspiracy or control of media, the economy, or government
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for the acts of one person or group
• Denying the Holocaust, its scope, or its mechanisms
• Accusing Jews or Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to their own country
• Denying Jewish people the right to self-determination, such as claiming Israel’s existence is a racist endeavor
• Applying double standards to Israel not expected of other democratic nations
• Using blood libel imagery to characterize Israel or Israelis
• Comparing contemporary Israeli policy to the Nazis
• Holding Jewish individuals collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel

Several of those examples involve Israel, and that is where the “you can’t criticize Israel” panic comes from. But the statute has two guardrails written directly into it.

Guardrail one, subsection (4): the definition does not include criticism of Israel that is similar to criticism of any other country. If you would say it about France, Russia, or the United States, you can say it about Israel.

Guardrail two, subsection (5): the section may not be construed to diminish or infringe any right protected by the First Amendment, or to conflict with federal or state antidiscrimination laws.

So can 1.015 be the basis of a speech prosecution? On its own, no. There is no offense to charge. Where the definition does matter is when another law points to it. A school reviewing a discrimination complaint, or a prosecutor arguing that a crime was bias-motivated under 775.085, can use it as evidence of what antisemitism looks like. And at least one law ties money to it, which we will get to below.

HB 1471: Where the Real Teeth Are

If you want to find where Florida law actually bites, this is it. HB 1471, which became Chapter 2026-28, was signed April 6, 2026, at the University of South Florida in Tampa and took effect July 1, 2026. It passed the House 80-25 and the Senate 25-11.

Notice what it is not: it is not an antisemitism law and it is not an Israel law. It is a terrorist designation law. Here is the machinery.

Who designates

Under new Section 943.03102, the state’s Chief of Domestic Security (the commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement) can designate a group as a domestic or foreign terrorist organization. The governor and Cabinet then approve or reject that designation by majority vote, at least seven days after notice. Critics, including the ACLU, point out that this means five executive officials can label a U.S. group without criminal charges, a judicial finding, or a jury. A designated group can challenge the label in circuit court in Leon County within 30 days.

What it criminalizes

• Material support: knowingly providing, attempting, or conspiring to provide material support or resources to a designated organization is a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 30 years. Advocacy groups opposing the law, including the ACLU of Florida, say penalties can reach life in prison. That is their characterization, not a court finding. Under the act, a terrorism offense that results in death or serious bodily injury is a life felony.
• Joining or training: knowingly joining a designated group, or receiving military-type training from one, is also a crime.

What it does to schools, money, and corporations

• Public schools, colleges, and universities cannot spend state or federal funds on programs that promote a designated group.
• A college student found to “promote” a designated group faces immediate expulsion and loses in-state tuition, fee waivers, scholarships, financial aid, state grants, and tuition assistance.
• State agencies and local governments cannot fund, contract with, or take money from a designated group.
• The Department of State can administratively dissolve a designated corporation, but only after the designation is published and any timely court challenge is resolved against the group.
• Separately, the law bars Florida courts from applying foreign or religious law in ways that violate the U.S. or Florida Constitutions.

The fight over the word “promote”

This is the heart of the civil liberties debate, so here is both sides, straight.

The statute itself defines “promote” as making a statement or taking an action that supports, approves, or encourages a terrorist organization’s extralegal violence. And it only applies when, in context, the conduct can reasonably be read as a true threat of unlawful violence, materially disrupts the learning environment, involves substantial disorder or invades the rights of others, or provides material support or recruitment. The sponsor, Rep. Hillary Cassel, R-Dania Beach, told lawmakers the bill “targets conduct, not belief.”

Critics see it differently. The ACLU of Florida called “promote” an undefined, open-ended standard that invites uneven enforcement and could cost students their education for protected speech. Free expression groups like PEN America called the bill confusingly worded and warned it could be used to shut down dissent. During debate, Democrats raised due process concerns, including a linked public records exemption (HB 1473) that shields how designations are reached.

Read the text and you see a definition aimed narrowly at violence. Read the critics and you see the fear that a narrow definition gets applied broadly in practice. Both can be true at once, and that is exactly why it is in court.

The designations and the court fight, as of Nov. 5, 2026

Here is what is settled and what is still moving.

Round one, the executive order. DeSantis signed an executive order Dec. 8, 2025, labeling CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood foreign terrorist organizations. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker blocked it in March 2026 on First Amendment grounds. The state appealed, and that case remains before the 11th Circuit.

Round two, the statute. On July 1, 2026, the day HB 1471 took effect, the FDLE commissioner recommended designating CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and antifa. On Sept. 29, DeSantis and the Cabinet approved designations that, according to multiple outlets, cover more than 90 organizations in total, including those three plus groups already on federal lists such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and drug cartels like Tren de Aragua. Worth noting: the federal government has never designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

The ruling. CAIR, CAIR-Florida, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center sued. On the night of Nov. 4, Chief U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor of the Northern District of Florida denied CAIR’s request to block the designation, finding the groups unlikely to succeed at this stage on their due process and First Amendment claims. He called the regime novel, and possibly unprecedented, but noted the Constitution does not prohibit a law simply because it is new. He also found the groups had not shown the designation is criminal punishment rather than a civil remedy.

He did give CAIR one narrow win: prosecutors cannot enforce the law’s penalties against CAIR, its employees, or third parties for providing legal services to the groups. Criminalizing legal advice, he found, is a content-based speech restriction that likely violates the First Amendment.

The fallout. The designation took effect Nov. 5, and CAIR suspended its Florida operations. CAIR and the ACLU of Florida say they will appeal. Attorney General James Uthmeier called the ruling a “great win,” and DeSantis posted that “Florida is holding CAIR accountable.” The ruling is preliminary. It does not resolve the case or make findings on whether CAIR is, in fact, a terrorist organization.

Settled: the law is in effect and the designations stand for now. In flux: the full case, the appeal, and the separate 11th Circuit fight over the executive order.

The Rest of the Stack

A few more pieces get thrown into the misinformation blender. Here is each one in a sentence or two.

• The Antisemitism Task Force that never happened. SB 1072 would have created an 18-member task force in the Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights. Sponsor Sen. Alexis Calatayud, R-Miami, added an amendment saying the definition excludes criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any other country. It passed the Senate 37-0, then died in the House on March 13, 2026. It is not law. If you see a post citing it, it is citing a dead bill.
• Grant money and boycotts (SB 1678, Chapter 2025-192). This is the one law with real financial consequences tied to the 1.015 definition. Applicants for certain state arts and culture grants must certify they will not engage in antisemitic discrimination or antisemitic speech, as defined in 1.015, in connection with the grant-funded project. Recipients caught boycotting Israel or discriminating owe three times the grant, and violators can be barred from grants for 10 years. Contractors who falsely certify they do not boycott Israel face a civil penalty of the greater of $2 million or twice the contract. Note the scope: this governs taxpayer-funded grants and contracts, not what a private citizen posts online.
• Jewish school security (HB 1109). Signed June 24, 2024, the same day as the definition law, it lets the state fund security hardening at Jewish day schools and preschools on a recurring basis. It is a funding law, not a speech law.
• The FIRE Act (HB 905). Signed in May 2026 and effective July 1, it bars public officials, employees, and candidates from taking gifts from “foreign countries of concern” (including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria) or from designated foreign terrorist organizations.
• Criminal libel. Florida still has an old criminal libel statute on the books. It is almost never prosecuted since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in Garrison v. Louisiana sharply limited criminal punishment for statements about public matters, and it has nothing to do with Israel.

Federal law runs alongside all of this. The federal hate crime statute, 18 U.S.C. § 249 (the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Act), covers a victim’s “actual or perceived” status. And 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is the federal material-support law for groups the State Department designates. Florida’s designation power is a separate, state-level system, and a Florida designation is not a federal one.

For more on how courts are checking government power this election season, see our coverage of the judge who limited DHS voter home visits, our breakdown of the viral claims around the Ilhan Omar investigation, and the Florida political clock behind DeSantis. You can find all of it in more Politics coverage from Stucci Media.

Bottom Line: Is It Illegal to Criticize Israel in Florida?

No. Here is the whole thing in one breath. Section 775.085 raises the penalty for real crimes when the victim was picked because of a protected trait, and religion covers every faith the same. Section 1.015 defines antisemitism but criminalizes nothing, and it explicitly protects criticism of Israel that is similar to criticism of any other country. HB 1471 criminalizes material support for designated groups and, under its own definition, violence-encouraging “promotion” on campus. That law is the live wire, and the court fight over it is just getting started.

Now the honest part. The critics’ concern about HB 1471 is not imaginary. A handful of executive officials can label a domestic nonprofit, attach felony exposure to supporting it, and expel students under a standard that depends on how someone in power reads “context.” The statute’s text aims narrow. Whether enforcement stays narrow is a legitimate policy debate, and a federal appeals court will weigh in on part of it. That debate deserves to be argued on what the laws actually say. Not on a screenshot.