Full Breakdown
Wisconsin Enacts Law Defining Antisemitism Amid Controversy
3/28/2026, 10:40:09 PM
New Legislation Signed by Governor Evers
On March 27, 2026, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers signed into law Assembly Bill 446, now known as Wisconsin Act 143, which adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This legislation aims to provide a clear framework for determining discriminatory intent in criminal cases, particularly those involving hate crimes targeting individuals based on their perceived race, religion, color, or national origin. The law has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of legislators and is part of a broader trend, with 37 other states and the federal government having adopted similar definitions.
Legislative Journey and Support
The bill was introduced in September 2025 and garnered significant support, passing the Assembly with a vote of 66-33 and later receiving approval from the Senate. Rep. Lisa Subeck, a co-sponsor and one of the Legislature's two Jewish members, expressed the necessity of the law, stating, "This is our opportunity to take a firm stand against antisemitism." Supporters argue that the legislation is crucial in light of rising antisemitic incidents, particularly following the October 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel.
Criticism and Concerns
Despite bipartisan support, the law has faced opposition from various groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Critics argue that the definition could infringe on free speech rights, particularly regarding criticism of Israel. They contend that the law may lead to the suppression of pro-Palestinian advocacy, with Ellie Yousif from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee stating, "The IHRA definition is not a neutral tool to address antisemitism."
Official Statements and Responses
Supporters of the bill, including the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, have praised the law as a necessary measure to combat rising antisemitism. They assert that it provides a critical tool for public institutions to recognize and respond to anti-Jewish bias. In contrast, opponents maintain that the law lacks sufficient safeguards against misuse, with concerns that it could be used to target individuals for expressing non-antisemitic views.
Conflicting Reports and Gaps
While proponents emphasize the law's protective measures for free speech, critics argue that the existing disclaimers may not adequately prevent potential misuse. The debate continues over whether the law will effectively balance the need to combat antisemitism while safeguarding constitutional rights.
Verbatim Quotes
- “This definition shines a light on behavior that might otherwise be excused, dismissed or even justified,” — Rep. Ron Tusler, R-Harrison
- “This is our opportunity to take a firm stand against antisemitism and to put that definition to be considered.” — Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison
- “The IHRA definition is not a neutral tool to address antisemitism,” — Ellie Yousif, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Conclusion
The enactment of Wisconsin Act 143 marks a significant step in the state's efforts to address antisemitism, reflecting a growing national trend. However, the law's implications for free speech and political discourse remain contentious, highlighting the ongoing debate over how best to combat hate while preserving constitutional rights.
