A Missouri law that went into effect this week requires public schools and universities to define antisemitic behavior in their codes of conduct and report those cases to state officials.
Before its passage, the bill underwent major changes in the legislature and faced criticism for its narrow focus on antisemitic behavior. The version of the law signed by Gov. Mike Kehoe was substantially broadened to include reporting requirements for all forms of discrimination, not just antisemitism.
The bill was also amended to clarify that the law applied only in the context of harassment or intimidation.
But critics of the law point out that its ambiguity still leaves school administrators to decide what is free speech — including whether criticism of Israel is motivated by antisemitism or not.
"The law says criticism of Israel that's similar to criticism toward any other country shall not be construed as being antisemitic," said Bill Freivogel, an attorney and a professor for the School of Journalism at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
That stipulation, Freivogel argued, doesn't do enough to clarify the law's boundaries. In a recent news analysis of the law for the Gateway Journalism Review, he noted that St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Aisha Sultan had directly asked the law's sponsor, Rep. George Hruza, R-St. Louis County, whether calling Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide would violate the law's restrictions. Hruza responded by arguing that the accusation was a "twisted definition of genocide" and that Hamas "would seem to be the genocidal organization in this conflict."
The exchange, Freivogel said, illustrated the confusion facing school officials in the new school year. "I do think that there should be protection of Jewish students," he added. "But there can't be a Palestinian exception to the First Amendment."
The law's supporters were aware of the criticism. The bill's final version includes the provision that none of the law's requirements can be "applied in ways that diminish or infringe any right protected under the First Amendment."
But that might not be enough.
"The problem is [the law] is going to be interpreted by these educational institutions," said Brenda Talent, an attorney and CEO of the conservative- and libertarian-leaning Show-Me Institute. "My concern is that these institutions are going to develop codes of conduct that go too far — that in fact do violate the First Amendment."
The constitutional right to free speech, she added, does not require a person to be well-versed in a subject or to make a balanced argument.
"You can come from a place of ignorance," she said. "That is your right under the First Amendment. Americans are allowed to be stupid or ignorant or have bad opinions."
Along with that confusion, the law creates fear, said attorney Javad Khazaeli of the law firm Khazaeli Wyrsch.
"You could come up with absurd outcomes where a Jewish student who criticizes Israel could be deemed antisemitic, and then their university could possibly lose funding over this," he said. "That's exactly what the whole point of this — this is to chill speech."
The antisemitism law was among several legal topics discussed during the August edition of the Legal Roundtable on "St. Louis on the Air." Khazaeli, Talent and Frievogel talked about two recent rulings with major implications for November's elections, a discrimination lawsuit with ties to the mafia, and more.
To hear the full conversation from this month's edition of the Legal Roundtable, listen to "St. Louis on the Air" on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or click the play button below.
"St. Louis on the Air" brings you the stories of St. Louis and the people who live, work and create in our region. The show is produced by Miya Norfleet, Emily Woodbury, Danny Wicentowski, Elaine Cha and Alex Heuer. Layla Halilbasic is our production assistant. The audio engineer is Aaron Doerr.
Copyright 2026 St. Louis Public Radio
