Imagine sharing a link on Instagram—not a threat, not a lie, just a link to someone’s publicly available work profile—and getting served with a lawsuit. That’s what allegedly happened to a Jewish couple in Pennsylvania. According to court filings, the Beers, a married couple, commented on a @JewHateDB Instagram post about an attorney whose social media content drew complaints of antisemitism. Their comments included a hyperlink to the attorney’s own firm bio. For that, they were sued.

Or imagine posting a photo of a t-shirt—a shirt emblazoned with the word “RESISTANCE” above a Palestinian flag and gun imagery, worn repeatedly to a gym near a Jewish community—and being hauled into court. The Chicago Jewish Alliance did exactly that: posted a photo of the shirt from behind, with no name, no face, no personal information. They were sued, too.

In each case, the alleged offense was the same: speaking out against antisemitism. And if you are a Jew who has ever shared an article, posted about an incident, or called attention to something that made you afraid—you should know that this could happen to you, too.

Since October 7, many Jews have told me they think twice before posting anything about antisemitism online. They screenshot instead of sharing. They text instead of tweeting. The fear is not hypothetical—it is shaping how an entire community talks, or doesn’t talk, about what is happening to them. These lawsuits are part of the reason why.

Earlier this week, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. dismissed every claim in Johnson v. Georgetown University,[1] a lawsuit that had named the university, several officials, outside Jewish donors, and Canary Mission—an organization that tracks antisemitism online—as defendants.[2] The plaintiff, a former Georgetown administrator, claimed her termination was orchestrated by a network of Jewish donors and advocacy organizations. The court found every one of those claims unsupported—and the case against the donor defendants so baseless that the judge sanctioned the plaintiff’s lawyer, noting the same attorney had filed a nearly identical suit against Emory University.

But the Johnson case is not an outlier. It is part of a pattern—and an alarming one. People and organizations that speak out against antisemitism are being hit with lawsuits. Not because the suits have legal merit, but because fighting them is expensive, exhausting, and distracting. The intended message is simple: call out antisemitism, and you may end up in court.

Across three other recent cases, individuals and organizations that called attention to antisemitic conduct—whether in the workplace, on social media, or in public spaces—found themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Attorneys affiliated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) represent the plaintiffs in all three cases. The Lawfare Project represents the defendants.

In Khorashi v. Beer,[3] an attorney was fired by the Chartwell Law firm after her social media posts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict drew complaints that they were antisemitic. According to the defense, the Beers, a married Jewish couple, had commented on an Instagram thread about Khorashi and included a hyperlink to her publicly available attorney profile on Chartwell’s website. Eleven days later, a different organization posted about Khorashi on a different platform, and Chartwell terminated her the next day. Khorashi sued the Beers—claiming, among other things, that they had defamed her and deliberately gotten her fired—for what the defense describes as linking to information that was already public.

In November 2025, the court threw out the original lawsuit in the Khorashi case—though it left the door open for the plaintiff to try again. The reason was straightforward: the court found that Chartwell’s own investigation, not anything the Beers said, led to the firing. Sharing truthful, publicly available information, the court held, cannot be the basis for a claim that someone got you fired. The plaintiff did refile, and the Beers’ motion to dismiss the new complaint is currently pending. They have also sought attorney’s fees under Florida’s anti-SLAPP law—a statute specifically designed to penalize lawsuits that target free speech.

Two cases now pending in Cook County, Illinois, target the Chicago Jewish Alliance (CJA), a local advocacy group. In Ubeid v. Chicago Jewish Alliance,[4] as alleged in the complaint and court filings, the plaintiff erected a display including a Palestinian flag and protest signs on a public easement right next to a Jewish Community Center’s preschool. Defense filings allege that the signs included violent imagery. CJA posted about the display on social media—and, as the defense has argued, its posts were aimed at asking local authorities to enforce existing ordinances. That is textbook First Amendment activity. In Ghushien v. Chicago Jewish Alliance,[5] as alleged, the plaintiff repeatedly wore a t-shirt featuring the word “RESISTANCE” above a Palestinian flag and gun imagery to the East Bank Club—a private fitness facility—even after the club asked him to stop. CJA posted about the incident, and, according to the defense, the posts showed only a photograph of the plaintiff’s shirt from behind—no name, no face, no personal information. Both suits claim CJA violated Illinois’s new anti-doxing law—a statute meant to stop people from publishing someone’s home address or personal details to cause them harm.

Why These Suits Fall Apart

In the Johnson case, the court found a fundamental problem: the plaintiff could not show that the defendants’ speech—rather than the employer’s own judgment—actually caused the job loss. The same flaw sank the original lawsuit in Khorashi, where the court held that Chartwell’s own decision to fire Khorashi—based on its months-long investigation—was not something the Beers caused. As the judge put it at oral argument, “at the end of the day, it is the firm that takes that position, that fires them for speech.” The motion to dismiss the amended complaint is currently pending.

The Illinois cases turn on a different question. Both invoke the state’s new doxing law—designed to protect people from having their personal details published online to cause them harm. That law serves a real purpose. But as we have argued, it was never meant to cover political speech, and the law itself says so: it expressly exempts constitutionally protected activity. In Ghushien, according to the defense, CJA’s posts did not even include the plaintiff’s name or face—only a photograph of a t-shirt from behind.

Here is the good news: the law provides real tools to fight back. Both Illinois and Florida have what are called anti-SLAPP laws. “SLAPP” stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”—which is the legal term for exactly what is happening in these cases: using a lawsuit to punish someone for speaking up. Anti-SLAPP laws let courts toss these cases quickly and force the person who filed the meritless suit to pay the defendant’s legal fees. Illinois recently strengthened its anti-SLAPP protections, and our motion to dismiss in Ubeid may be among the first to invoke those new provisions.

And then there is the First Amendment. The doxing law itself exempts constitutionally protected speech. In Ghushien, we argued that CJA’s posts were political advocacy—calling attention to objectionable conduct and urging a consumer boycott—which is exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment protects. The plaintiff himself concedes that CJA may “post their political beliefs and call for a boycott,” but claims that identifying the conduct being boycotted is illegal doxing. That position is difficult to reconcile.

It is worth noting that CAIR—the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which describes itself as a civil-rights organization committed to free expression—serves as plaintiffs’ counsel in three of these four cases. There is an inescapable tension between championing free speech and using the courts to punish people for engaging in the very kind of public advocacy the First Amendment protects.

But the problem is bigger than any single organization. Lawsuits like these—even meritless ones—impose real costs on the people forced to defend them. Legal fees mount. Time and energy are diverted from advocacy. And everyone watching learns the intended lesson: speaking up is not worth the trouble. That is the whole point of a SLAPP suit. The goal is not to win in court. The goal is to make the fight so expensive and exhausting that people stop fighting.

The courts, however, are pushing back—and that matters. The Johnson dismissal—complete with sanctions against the plaintiff’s lawyer—sends an unmistakable signal. Anti-SLAPP laws give defendants the ability to get these cases thrown out early and force the plaintiff to pay the legal fees. And the doxing law’s own First Amendment exemptions mean it cannot be turned into a gag order on political speech.

Still, legal victories alone are not enough. Every one of these lawsuits costs real money, real time, and real energy—resources that would be better spent fighting antisemitism than fighting in court. So what should you do if it happens to you?

First, know that the law is on your side. Truthful speech about matters of public concern is protected by the First Amendment. Sharing publicly available information is not defamation. Calling for a boycott is not doxing. Second, know that anti-SLAPP laws exist in many states specifically to protect people like you—and they can force the other side to pay your legal fees if their lawsuit was designed to silence rather than to seek justice. Third, do not stay silent and do not try to handle it alone. Organizations like The Lawfare Project exist for exactly this reason: to make sure that people who stand up against antisemitism do not have to stand alone in court.

The message from these cases is clear: speak up, and you may be sued. But the message from the courts is clear, too—and it is getting louder. The truth is a defense. The First Amendment is a shield. And the people trying to silence Jewish voices are losing.

[1] Johnson v. Georgetown Univ., Case No. 1:25-cv-01540-CRC (D.D.C.), Order filed Mar. 31, 2026. All claims were dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants who appeared in the case.

[2] The claims against Canary Mission, who did not appear in the case, were not addressed by the court’s order and remain technically pending.

[3] Khorashi v. Beer, Case No. 25-cv-23202-JB (S.D. Fla.).

[4] Ubeid v. Chicago Jewish Alliance, Case No. 2025L013008 (Cook Cnty., Ill.).

[5] Ghushien v. Chicago Jewish Alliance, Case No. 2025-L-013031 (Cook Cnty., Ill.).

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)