Legal frameworks addressing discrimination based on race, gender, or disability do not adequately capture the nature or evolution of antisemitism. Jew hatred is not simply disliking Jews—it is a conspiracy theory that casts Jews as uniquely evil, powerful, and responsible for the world’s suffering, suggesting that only through their elimination can humanity be redeemed. This hatred has often been cloaked in “righteous” causes, shifting forms to fit the ideology of the age: religious persecution (Jews killed Jesus, rejected Muhammad), racial pseudoscience (Nazism), and now the vilification of Jewish peoplehood (antizionism).

A fundamental obstacle to addressing Jew hatred under existing civil rights law is the widespread misunderstanding of who the Jewish people are. Jews are not merely adherents of a religion, but a people—am Yisrael—bound by shared ancestry, history, texts, and connection to the land of Israel. This unique identity, simultaneously ethnic, religious, cultural, and national, does not fit neatly into the existing protected categories of American civil rights law. Without a deeper grasp of Jewish peoplehood, courts are unable to apply anti-discrimination protections with accuracy or consistency.

Jew hatred is also distinct from other forms of bias the law currently recognizes. Race-based discrimination in the United States emerged from a hierarchy of inferiority—enshrined through slavery, segregation, and exclusion—aimed at demeaning and oppressing. Jew hatred, by contrast, is fueled not by notions of Jewish inferiority but by myths of Jewish power and malevolence.

Gender discrimination, likewise, stems from longstanding social hierarchies that limited women’s participation and autonomy—biases the law addresses through equality and representation. Disability discrimination law focuses on inclusion and accommodation. None of these other frameworks contemplates a form of hatred that treats an entire people as a global threat.

Because legal scholarship has largely ignored Jew hatred’s many shape-shifting forms, courts often fail to recognize the unique historical and contemporary harm it inflicts—especially when it masquerades as moral virtue or political justice.

The unprecedented rise in global antisemitism and antizionism has exposed a critical gap in legal scholarship and policy. The antizionist movement has become increasingly organized and visible in academia, developing sophisticated theories that strategically normalize hostile and false narratives about Jewish identity, history, and peoplehood. For example, legal scholarship increasingly denies that the Jewish identity is inextricably tied to the Jewish people’s historical connection to Israel; demonizes Israel and Zionism; argues that the passage of boycott, divestment, and sanctions initiatives are not antisemitic; and advances a “weaponization of antisemitism” claim, a dangerous narrative that  accusations of antisemitism are merely tools to silence criticism of Israel. This rhetoric dismisses legitimate concerns about Jew-hatred and creates an environment where antisemitism is normalized and Jewish voices are marginalized.

In contrast, the legal community has not yet sufficiently established the legal and scholarly frameworks needed to define and explain how antisemitism operates in modern society. The result is a dangerous imbalance: a proliferation of anti-Jewish and antizionist-informed scholarship alongside a striking absence of Jewish identity-centered legal analysis.

This imbalance has tangible consequences in the courts. In October 2025, in StandWithUs v. MIT,  plaintiffs argued that it is antisemitic to deny Jewish self-determination, label the existence of Israel a “racist endeavor,” hold Israel to double standards not applied to other democracies, or compare Israeli policy to Nazism. The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the antisemitic harassment claim, noting there is “no consensus” on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, citing academic disagreement and the absence of a clear legal or scholarly foundation.

This case underscores the urgent need for Jewish Legal Studies. Without a robust body of Jewish identity-centered scholarship to conceptualize antizionism and antisemitism and provide analytical frameworks, courts lack the doctrinal and intellectual tools to assess claims involving contemporary antisemitism. As a result, judges are left to navigate complex issues of Jewish identity, history, and discrimination without guidance from those most knowledgeable about and affected by Jew hatred.

The Center for Jewish Legal Studies is pioneering a critical new field: Jewish Legal Studies to equip legal professionals, including scholars, practitioners, and policymakers, with the conceptualizations, definitions, legal principles, frameworks, and analytical tools needed to identify and understand all forms of Jew hatred; challenge antisemitic and antizionist harassment, discrimination, and violence; defend Jewish civil rights; protect Jewish communities; and provide support for Israel. This will be a new field of study dedicated to understanding and promoting justice for Jewish people under the law. 

CJLS gives voice, structure, and academic legitimacy to the legal defense of the Jewish people. It will educate a new generation of lawyers to effectively navigate this emerging field, equip judges to recognize and rule justly in cases involving antizionist bias, and provide legislators with the research and expertise needed to craft strong, principled laws that safeguard Israel and Jewish civil rights.