A US federal court in Washington ruled that intentionally attacking a Jewish individual for wearing an Israeli flag constitutes direct evidence of racial discrimination under a post-Civil War statute.
United States District Judge Trevor N. McFadden issued the memorandum order in the case of Sumrall v. Ali, denying a motion to dismiss brought by Janine Ali against plaintiff Kimmara Sumrall.
The litigation stems from an incident in November 2024 at a demonstration outside the Dirksen Senate Office Building, where Sumrall, a Jewish-American woman, wore an Israeli flag tied around her neck as a cape.
According to court filings, Ali approached Sumrall from behind while she was isolated from her group and yanked on the flag, causing brief choking, pain, and disorientation. US Capitol Police Officer Reed Bonney intervened and arrested Ali at the scene.
Defense argues assaulting woman wearing Israeli flag was act of political dissent
In her motion to dismiss, Ali contended that her actions represented political dissent regarding Israeli government policies rather than antisemitic discrimination. Defense arguments maintained that the Israeli flag symbolizes the state of Israel rather than an ethnic or racial identity.
Judge McFadden rejected the defense’s framing, and on Tuesday wrote that “the Star of David emblazoned upon the Israeli flag symbolizes the Jewish race,” and concluded that “battery, particularly involving a racial symbol, is strong evidence of racial discrimination.”
The court said that “it is quite a stretch to say that yanking on a flag tied around someone’s neck is an objection to state policies; battery is not a legitimate form of protest.”
The court also noted that Ali had no reason to believe Sumrall was affiliated with the Israeli government, making it “much more likely that she was intentionally attacking a Jewish person wearing a Jewish flag as a symbol of her racial heritage.”
The ruling allows Sumrall’s claim under 42 USC Section 1981 to proceed, alongside related District of Columbia tort claims including battery, assault based on a protected trait, and trespass to chattels. The court dismissed only a separate claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, ruling that it failed to meet the rigorous standard required under DC law.
Jewish advocacy group hails ruling
Mark Goldfeder, director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, detailed the significance of the decision in a social media thread. Goldfeder wrote that it was a “massive win” and noted that the “‘it’s just anti-Zionism not antisemitism' excuse has now been raised, briefed, and rejected on the record”.
Goldfeder said that “every defendant who reaches for that excuse will now find this opinion waiting,” and added that the decision proves that statutory laws protecting other minorities in America protect Jewish people as well. Furthermore, Goldfeder highlighted that the federal court directly addressed a circuit split, ruling that Section 1981’s Equal Benefit Clause reaches private racist violence without requiring a separate showing of state action.