Mayor Julie Masters

4403 Highway 3
Dickinson, TX 77539

October 26, 2017

Dear Mayor Masters,

It is our understanding that the municipality of Dickinson is requiring recipients of

Hurricane Harvey aid to certify they are not boycotting Israel. In addition to being inhumane

given the urgent situation, refusing to distribute hurricane aid based on the political views of the

recipient is unconstitutional.

A boycott for political, economic or social change is political speech and thus receives

the highest protections afforded by the First Amendment.1 The unconstitutional conditions

doctrine holds that even if an individual does not have a right to a public benefit, they cannot be

denied that benefit based on exercise of a constitutional right.2 For example, in the 1950s, the

state of California required individuals to sign a loyalty oath in order to receive a tax benefit for

veterans. California argued that this was not an infringement of the First Amendment, as the tax

benefit was a privilege not a right. However, the Supreme Court stated that [t]o deny an

1
See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
2
See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972); USAID v.
Alliance
for Open Socy Intl, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2332 (2013)).
exemption to claimants who engage in certain forms of speech is, in effect, to penalize them for

such speech. Its deterrent effect is the same as if the State were to fine them for this speech.3

This doctrine has been expanded to encompass far more than just tax benefits and the

Supreme Court has explicitly extended this doctrine to independent contractors, r uling the

government cannot penalize contractors based on their First Amendment protected political

speech.4 The requirement that both individuals and companies seeking hurricane relief certify

they do not boycott Israel is an unconstitutional condition.

The city of Dickinson has cited as justification for its action Texass anti-boycott law,

which prohibits companies who boycott Israel from receiving state contracts. While this law is

clearly unconstitutional, we note that the bills own sponsor has condemned your decision to

condition hurricane recovery aid on political speech, claiming it is based on a misinterpretation

of the law.

We urge you to cease conditioning the receipt of hurricane recovery aid on the political

views of the recipient. Such a practice is unconstitutional.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact Chip Gibbons, policy and
legislative counsel for Defending Rights & Dissent at (202) 529-4225.

Sincerely,

Emily Berman, Vice President, Defending Rights & Dissent, Assistant Professor, University of
Houston Law Center.*

Chip Gibbons, Policy & Legislative Counsel, Defending Rights & Dissent

*For identification purposes only.

3
See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958).
4
See OHare Truck Service v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996).