Maryland hearing centers on bill to bar state contract requirement over foreign-government boycotts

Delegate Delia K. Young, sponsor of House Bill 14-60, told the Health and Government Operations Committee on March 11 that the bill would bar the state from conditioning contracts on a company’s promise not to boycott a foreign government, arguing the requirement likely violates the U.S. Constitution and chills protected political speech.

Young said Maryland currently requires bidders to sign a number of certifications to do business with the state, and that one later certification “on its face” appears to compel a political viewpoint and could trigger strict judicial scrutiny. She said the provision raises concerns under the First Amendment and, she added, could raise questions under the Commerce Clause, Equal Protection and Due Process. Young also told the committee that the state’s certification carries a perjury penalty she described as exposing contractors to criminal liability.

The bill’s proponents emphasized free‑speech and economic access arguments. Dana Vickers Shelley, executive director of the ACLU of Maryland, told the committee HB 14-60 would repeal what she described as “arbitrary requirements” that she said punish companies for political beliefs and discourage firms from bidding on state contracts. Lawrence Grandpre of Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle urged the committee to weigh whether loyalty tests tied to a foreign nation should determine whether a business can make a living in Maryland.

Supporters framed boycotts as a longstanding, constitutionally protected form of political expression and urged the committee to reject what they described as an executive‑branch policy that “forces companies to choose between their livelihoods or their rights.” Several witnesses said some state laws or orders in other states had been struck down on First Amendment grounds and cited a prior Maryland case that did not reach the constitutional merits on standing grounds.

Committee members pressed sponsors on whether the state’s language targets Israel specifically or uses a broader “discriminatory boycott” standard. Young answered that some procurement provisions had singled out Israel and that separate statutory language has been used for countries such as the Congo and Iran under the State Finance and Procurement Article. In response to questions, witnesses gave differing descriptions of the scope and common phrasing of procurement clauses and the ACLU reiterated that, in its view, boycotts are protected speech even when offensive.

Public witnesses who testified in favor included small business owners who said the certification could force them to choose between political beliefs and contracting with the state, as well as local advocates who said the certification chills dissent. Opponents who filed letters of opposition (read into the record by committee staff) included Jewish community organizations that said state efforts to discourage boycotts of Israel were widespread and ordinarily enacted with bipartisan support.

No final vote was recorded in the hearing. The committee heard multiple witnesses and took questions from members before concluding testimony on HB 14-60.