Watch Michael Ehrenstein’s interview on i24 News regarding this ruling here, and read the ruling here.

In a historic ruling handed down this week, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., applied a Reconstruction-era civil rights law—originally passed to protect newly freed slaves—to protect a Jewish woman assaulted at a protest for wearing an Israeli flag. The decision could pave the way for Jewish Americans to invoke powerful federal civil rights protections in the face of rising antisemitism.

The case, Sumrall v. Ali, involved a disturbing incident in which a Jewish woman, Kimmara Sumrall, was choked by a pro-Palestinian activist who yanked an Israeli flag tied around her neck at a protest in the U.S. Senate cafeteria. Although the defendant, Janine Ali, was acquitted of assault in D.C. criminal court, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden found sufficient evidence of a racially motivated battery to issue a preliminary injunction ordering Ali to stay away from Sumrall.

But the ruling’s real significance lies in how the court got there.

A Civil Rights Law from 1866 Finds New Relevance

Judge McFadden grounded his ruling in 42 U.S.C. § 1981—a statute passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, immediately after the U.S. Civil War. Its original purpose was to protect Black Americans from racial discrimination, ensuring they could enter contracts, own property, and access the legal system on equal footing with white citizens.

Judge McFadden found that the same statute applies to Jewish Americans who are racially targeted.

“The Star of David—emblazoned upon the Israeli flag—symbolizes the Jewish race,” the court wrote. “Battery, particularly involving a racial symbol, is strong evidence of racial discrimination.” The judge ruled that attacking a person wearing such a symbol, in this context, was direct evidence of racial animus, actionable under § 1981.

This is one of the first published decisions to use § 1981 to protect Jews from antisemitic violence occurring outside of economic or contractual relationships. It sends a clear message: Jewish identity is protected under U.S. federal civil rights law, and violence or intimidation based on that identity can trigger serious legal consequences.

The Ruling’s Reach: Beyond Protests

While the case involved a protest, the court’s reasoning has broader implications. It suggests that any racially motivated interference with a Jewish person’s access to public life may give rise to a § 1981 claim.

That includes recent instances on college campuses where Jewish students have been targeted for exclusion or intimidation.  Consider as just one example the Jewish students at UCLA who were pushed, kicked and beaten as they tried to retrieve Israeli flags, and others who were blocked from accessing areas of their campus unless they denounced their faith.

Under the rationale embraced by Judge McFadden, these students may not need to rely solely on Title VI (which requires government enforcement and links to federal funding). They can pursue private causes of action under § 1981 if their exclusion or harassment stems from racial animus against Jews.

The judge made clear that § 1981 is not limited to economic transactions. It also protects against deprivation of “the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.” That language—designed in 1866 to protect freed slaves from private violence—also protects Jewish Americans facing racially motivated exclusion or assault.

The Court’s Message: Battery Is Not Protest

Judge McFadden’s opinion is carefully written but unflinching. He credited testimony from a neutral Capitol Police officer who witnessed the assault. He rejected the defendant’s argument that the attack was political rather than racial, calling it “a stretch” to claim that yanking a flag around someone’s neck is mere protest.

“If yanking on a flag emblazoned with the Star of David tied around a Jewish person’s neck at a pro-Israel protest is not discrimination,” the court declared, “I don’t know what is.”

That sentence alone may mark a turning point in how courts view the intersection of anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

A Judge Who Knows the Law—and Its Purpose

Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a former federal prosecutor and Trump appointee, serves on the powerful U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Known for his thorough and principled opinions, McFadden approached this case with both moral clarity and legal rigor.

His recognition that a civil rights law meant to dismantle post-Civil War racial terror also protects Jews is more than just doctrinal—it’s symbolic. It ties the fight against antisemitism into the broader American tradition of civil rights enforcement, placing Jewish safety and dignity within the same legal framework that protects other vulnerable minorities.

A Roadmap for the Future

Jewish Americans—especially students and young activists—now have a clear signal: federal civil rights law may be available to protect them against intimidation, exclusion, and physical harm rooted in their racial or ethnic identity. mThis ruling should be read and cited widely. It offers more than protection—it offers empowerment.

Jewish Americans, like all racial minorities, have the right to live, speak, protest, learn, and worship without fear. If that right is threatened, the law is now on firmer ground to defend it.