By Howie Silbiger
A federal judge has refused to dismiss most of a civil-rights lawsuit against pro-Palestinian activist Janine Ali, who was arrested after grabbing an Israeli flag being worn around the neck of Jewish activist Kimmara Sumrall during a confrontation inside the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington.
The incident took place on November 13, 2024, while CodePink activists and pro-Israel demonstrators were at the Senate office complex. Sumrall was wearing an Israeli flag around her neck as a cape when Ali walked past her on a crowded ramp leading toward the Senate cafeteria. U.S. Capitol Police Officer Reed Bonney testified that he was only several feet away when he saw Ali approach Sumrall from behind, grab the flag and pull it downward. Sumrall said the pull jerked her head backward and briefly choked her. Bonney arrested Ali and testified that, while being taken away, she said, “All I did was grab it.”
Ali has maintained that any contact with the flag was accidental. She testified that she had her phone in one hand and a purse in the other and has a disability affecting the use of some of her fingers. A defence witness also testified that she did not see Ali make contact with Sumrall.
Ali was charged with simple assault and was acquitted in D.C. Superior Court on May 19, 2025. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which represents Ali, said the criminal judge found inconsistencies in the testimony of Sumrall and the police officer and found Ali credible. The acquittal did not prevent Sumrall from pursuing a separate civil case, where the standard of proof is lower than in a criminal prosecution.
Sumrall eventually brought the case into federal court under Section 1981 of the U.S. Civil Rights Act. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden held an evidentiary hearing last summer and heard Bonney testify. McFadden described the Capitol Police officer as a “highly credible witness” and found that Sumrall had shown a likelihood of succeeding on her claim that Ali deliberately pulled the flag. McFadden also noted that the criminal acquittal was based on the much higher requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and did not control the civil case.
On August 18, McFadden rejected Ali’s attempt to have most of Sumrall’s lawsuit thrown out. Sumrall’s federal civil-rights claim will continue, along with D.C. claims involving battery, assault based on a protected trait and trespass to chattels. McFadden dismissed her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Much of the argument centres on why Sumrall was targeted and what the Israeli flag represented in the confrontation. Ali’s lawyers argued that hostility toward the Israeli flag was political and related to Israel, not Sumrall’s Jewish identity. McFadden rejected that argument as grounds for dismissing the case.
The judge wrote that the Star of David appearing on the Israeli flag can symbolize Jewish identity and that attacking a Jew wearing that symbol can support a claim of discrimination. He also rejected the argument that pulling the flag from around Sumrall’s neck could simply be treated as an expression of opposition to Israeli policy.
“It is quite a stretch to say that yanking on a flag tied around someone’s neck is an objection to state policies,” McFadden wrote. “Battery is not a legitimate form of protest.”
McFadden also noted that Sumrall was not an Israeli government official and had no role in setting Israeli policy. She was an American Jew wearing an Israeli flag at a pro-Israel demonstration. Sumrall’s complaint argues that Ali’s actions were directed at her because of her Jewish identity, while Ali continues to argue that the incident was connected to political opposition to Israel.
Section 1981 dates back to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and was originally written to protect racial minorities following the Civil War. American courts have long recognized Jews as protected under Reconstruction-era civil-rights laws because Jews were regarded as a distinct race when those laws were written. In the 1987 case Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Jews could bring claims under federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
The dispute in Sumrall’s case goes one step further. McFadden ruled that a provision of Section 1981 known as the Equal Benefit Clause can apply to racially motivated violence committed by one private person against another. Federal appeals courts have reached different conclusions on whether that part of the law requires some form of government involvement, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not settled the issue.
The National Jewish Advocacy Center, which represents Sumrall, has described the decision as a major rejection of efforts to separate anti-Zionist conduct from anti-Jewish discrimination. Ali’s lawyers and CodePink have taken the opposite position, arguing that the case attempts to redefine criticism of Israel as racial discrimination against Jews.
The ruling itself is narrower than either side’s public description of it. McFadden did not rule that opposition to Israel or Zionism is automatically discrimination against Jews. He ruled that Sumrall has presented enough to continue with her claim that the attack on her was motivated, at least in part, by her Jewish identity, and that Ali’s claim that the incident was political is not enough to have the case dismissed.
Discover more from Montreal Jewish News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
