Peloni: Bravo once again to Brooke Goldstein and the Lawfare Project as they successfully litigate the overturn of an illegal sanctions policy weaponized by the Biden administration to silence dissenting objections to the forced imposition of the creation of a second Palestinian state in addition to Jordan.
Settlement formally opposes policies targeting Israeli citizens and organizations in Judea and Samaria, while reaffirming constitutional protections for free speech and religious liberty.
TheJ.ca Staff | TheJ.ca | June 11, 2026
Image by Blogtrepreneur – Legal Gavel, CC BY 2.0, Wikipedia
The Lawfare Project has announced the successful resolution of a landmark federal lawsuit challenging Executive Order 14115, the Biden administration’s sanctions regime targeting Israeli individuals and organizations in Judea and Samaria.
The settlement, executed on June 3, 2026, concludes Texans for Israel v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. According to The Lawfare Project, the agreement includes a formal statement by the U.S. government reaffirming Israel as one of America’s closest allies while rejecting policies that target Israeli citizens or private organizations living in Judea and Samaria.
The litigation was funded by The Lawfare Project and argued by Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC, with attorney Jonathan Mitchell serving as local counsel. The plaintiffs included Texans for Israel, its president Michael Isley, the Israeli public policy organization Regavim, Regavim Director General Meir Deutsch, activist Yosef Ben Chaim, and farmer Ari Abramowitz.
Executive Order Challenged in Federal Court
Executive Order 14115 was introduced during the Biden administration and was presented as a measure designed to address violence in Judea and Samaria.
According to the lawsuit, however, its broad language concerning actions affecting “peace, security, or stability” enabled sanctions to be imposed on Jewish individuals and organizations engaged in peaceful advocacy, while no Palestinian individuals were designated under the order.
The complaint alleged that the sanctions violated the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The plaintiffs argued that the sanctions regime effectively penalized constitutionally protected political speech and peaceful activism concerning Israeli policy in Judea and Samaria.
Settlement Includes Formal U.S. Government Commitments
As part of the settlement, the U.S. government formally stated:
“Israel is one of the United States’ closest allies, and the United States will treat the country and its people accordingly.”
The government also affirmed:
“The United States categorically rejects any policy that would infringe upon Israel’s sovereignty or target private organizations and Israeli citizens living in the West Bank.”
The Lawfare Project noted that while the settlement uses the terminology contained in the official government document, the organization continues to refer to the area as Judea and Samaria.
The agreement also includes commitments from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which confirmed it will not pursue enforcement actions against any of the plaintiffs for activities that would previously have been prohibited under Executive Order 14115.
OFAC further stated that it “does not sanction persons for their engagement in activities subject to U.S. constitutional protection, such as protected speech or religious practice or for their religious beliefs.”
Brooke Goldstein Calls Settlement a Historic Victory
Brooke Goldstein, founder and Executive Director of The Lawfare Project, described the settlement as a significant legal and constitutional victory.
“This settlement repudiates the discriminatory notion that Jews are illegal in Judea and Samaria,” Goldstein said.
“Nowhere on earth is the mere presence of Christians, Muslims, or members of any other faith treated as a provocation, yet the prior administration built an entire sanctions regime on the premise that the presence of Jews is.”
Goldstein argued that the sanctions program, while presented as addressing violence, was instead applied exclusively against Jewish individuals.
“A sanctions program presented as targeting violence was applied exclusively against Jews, including a mother of eight whose only offense was leading peaceful protests,” she said.
“That is viewpoint discrimination, it is religious discrimination, and it is fundamentally un-American.”
Goldstein added that the U.S. government’s rejection of policies targeting Israeli citizens and organizations in Judea and Samaria represents an important step toward recognizing Israeli jurisdiction over law enforcement matters in the territory.
Legal Scholar Highlights Broader Implications
Professor Eugene Kontorovich of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, who advised the legal team, said the settlement raises broader questions regarding how sanctions were applied.
“Given the supposed epidemic of settler violence, it is notable that the sanctions imposed against it targeted Jews not for murder, but for protesting aid to Hamas or advocating against illegal Palestinian construction,” Kontorovich said.
He added that the settlement acknowledges what he characterized as unequal application of sanctions while failing to address the Palestinian Authority’s longstanding “pay-for-slay” program.
Trump Administration Revoked Executive Order
The lawsuit also coincided with major policy changes following President Donald Trump’s return to office.
According to The Lawfare Project, President Trump revoked Executive Order 14115 on his first day in office.
Within days, OFAC removed all 33 sanctioned individuals and entities from its sanctions lists and unblocked their assets.
The settlement further acknowledges that Reut Ben Haim, founder of the Tzav 9 protest movement and a mother of eight, had been sanctioned without evidence that she personally participated in violent acts.
The Lawfare Project said this acknowledgment validates one of the central arguments raised in the lawsuit, namely that peaceful advocacy had become the basis for government sanctions.
International Sanctions Remain a Growing Concern
The organization cautioned that similar policies continue to emerge outside the United States.
According to The Lawfare Project, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand recently imposed coordinated sanctions on Israeli individuals and organizations. The European Union also adopted additional sanctions in late May.
Among those affected are plaintiffs in the Texas litigation.
The European Union sanctioned Regavim and its Director General, Meir Deutsch, while Canada sanctioned Regavim itself.
The Lawfare Project argues these sanctions target lawful advocacy rather than criminal conduct.
According to the organization, Canada’s public announcement justified its measures as a response to conduct it viewed as undermining the viability of a two-state solution.
The plaintiffs contend this demonstrates that such sanctions function as restrictions on political advocacy rather than responses to proven acts of violence.
Continuing Legal Advocacy
The Lawfare Project described the settlement as an important milestone in its broader mission of defending the civil and human rights of the Jewish people through strategic litigation.
The organization said the case establishes significant constitutional protections for free speech, religious liberty, and peaceful advocacy while reaffirming that political expression concerning Judea and Samaria remains protected under American law.
Founded to combat antisemitism through impact litigation, The Lawfare Project continues to pursue legal challenges involving discrimination against Jewish individuals and organizations in the United States and internationally.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.