A Donald Trump nominated United States District Judge has ruled that the Israeli Flag represents the “Jewish race” and that assaulting a Jew displaying that flag is an attack on Jewish “racial heritage.”
Judge Trevor N. McFadden, District Judge for the District of Columbia, nominated by President Donald Trump in 2017, declared that the Israeli flag — with the Star of David at its center — is not a political symbol at all, but a racial one, as reported by the Times of Israel.
McFadden ruled in favor of pro-Israel activist Kimmara Sumrall, who is Jewish, after she filed a civil lawsuit against one Janine Ali for allegedly assaulting her during a pro-Israel demonstration in Washington in November 2024.
Sumrall stated that while she was wearing an Israeli flag tied around her neck as a cape at the 2024 rally, Ali, an anti-Israel activist present at a counter-protest organized by Code Pink, approached Sumrall from behind and yanked on the flag, briefly choking her, according to the lawsuit.
A police officer witnessed the incident and arrested Ali at the scene.
In his ruling, McFadden found that Ali “purposefully discriminated against” Sumrall based on her race.
“Purposefully yanking on an Israeli flag tied around a Jewish person’s neck to choke them is direct evidence of racial discrimination,” the federal judge stated. “The Star of David—emblazoned upon the Israeli flag—symbolizes the Jewish race.”
McFadden also dismissed the defendant’s argument that the Israeli flag represents the State of Israel, so her alleged action is “merely anti-Israel, not antisemitic.”
Matthew Mainen, Sumrall’s lawyer and a litigation counsel with the National Jewish Advocacy Center, told The Times of Israel that McFadden’s ruling marked “the strongest language a federal court has come out with yet that anti-Zionism is obviously antisemitism.”
Mainen said the ruling was significant because it established case law equating attacks against the Star of David and Israeli flag with antisemitism. Case law is formed by judges writing opinions on individual cases that guide legal interpretations in future cases. Case law differs from legal precedents in that precedents are binding, meaning they are rulings that courts must adhere to, while case law serves as a guidepost.
In future lawsuits alleging antisemitism stemming from anti-Israel activism, for example, plaintiffs will be able to cite the Sumrall lawsuit as evidence that there is a legal standard equating anti-Zionism with anti-Jewish discrimination. Mainen said the case would likely be “heavily cited” in the future.
The lawsuit also made novel use of an obscure federal legal provision dating back to the Civil War era aimed at combating racial discrimination. The provision, first enacted as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guarantees equal rights for all racial groups, and Jews have been recognized by the Supreme Court as a race for purposes of civil rights law. The provision elevates racially motivated assault from state court to federal court.
