Passed
419 Yea0 Nay11 Not voting2/3 required
HRES-1251-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
What it does
This bill is a simple resolution (H.Res.) that would call on elected officials and civil society leaders to take steps to counter antisemitism and to educate the public about the contributions of the Jewish-American community. As a House resolution, it would express the sense of the House of Representatives but would not carry the force of law, create any new programs, or appropriate any funds.
Who benefits
Jewish Americans, who may benefit from increased public awareness of antisemitism and recognition of their community's contributions. Civil society organizations focused on combating hate and discrimination, which may gain political visibility. Educators and advocacy groups working on Holocaust remembrance and Jewish history, who may see their work elevated. Broadly, communities that benefit from reduced hate-based incidents.
Who is hurt
No group faces a direct material harm from this resolution, as it carries no legal force. Groups that oppose specific definitions of antisemitism — such as those who argue certain definitions conflate criticism of Israeli government policy with antisemitism — may object to the resolution's framing depending on its final language. Civil liberties organizations may raise concerns if the resolution implies speech restrictions, though it does not mandate any.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that antisemitic incidents in the United States have risen sharply in recent years — the Anti-Defamation League reported a record 10,000+ incidents in 2023 — and that a formal congressional statement sends a clear signal that such conduct is unacceptable. They contend that educating the public about Jewish-American contributions strengthens social cohesion and that elected officials have a responsibility to use their platforms to counter hate directed at any community.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that simple resolutions without enforcement mechanisms or funding are largely symbolic and do little to materially reduce antisemitism or hate crimes. They contend that congressional resources and attention would be better directed toward substantive legislation — such as hate crime enforcement funding or education grants — rather than non-binding statements, and that the resolution's vague call to "counter antisemitism" could be interpreted in ways that chill constitutionally protected speech or political expression.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issue is raised by this resolution. As a non-binding expression of congressional sentiment, it does not regulate conduct, appropriate funds, or delegate authority to any agency. The First Amendment is tangentially relevant in that any downstream actions by officials responding to the resolution's call would need to respect free speech protections, but the resolution itself creates no legal obligations.
Checks and balances
The House of Representatives expresses a non-binding sentiment; no branch gains or loses formal authority, and no executive or judicial action is triggered by the resolution's passage.
Historical precedent
Congress has passed numerous similar non-binding resolutions condemning antisemitism and other forms of discrimination, including H.Res. 72 (116th Congress), which condemned antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry.
Passed