Overview
In three weeks, two of the country’s most powerful Republican governors have declared one of America’s largest Muslim civil rights groups a “foreign terrorist organization.” Texas Governor Greg Abbott moved first, and now Florida’s Ron DeSantis has ordered state agencies to treat the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist outfits—despite the federal government refusing to put either on its official terror list.
The orders cut CAIR and its alleged supporters off from state contracts, jobs, and funds, and they lean on disputed claims of ties to Hamas after the 2023 Israel–Gaza war. CAIR calls the moves defamatory, Islamophobic, and flatly unconstitutional, and has already sued Texas while vowing to haul Florida into court next. At stake is whether governors can weaponize state power to slap the “terrorist” label on domestic advocacy groups whose politics they hate.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
CAIR is the country’s largest Muslim civil rights group, now fighting to survive state terror labels.
The nearly century‑old Islamist movement is being used as the bridge to link CAIR to Hamas.
Florida’s governor’s office is using executive power to invent a state terror list.
Texas under Abbott pioneered the state-level terror label now being copied in Florida.
Timeline
-
CAIR vows to sue Florida over DeSantis order
LegalCAIR’s national and Florida chapters condemn DeSantis’s move as a “stunt” and “defamatory and unconstitutional,” pledging to file a lawsuit similar to the one already underway in Texas.
-
Florida follows Texas in labeling CAIR a foreign terrorist organization
Executive ActionGovernor Ron DeSantis issues an executive order declaring CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood foreign terrorist organizations under Florida authority, directing state agencies to deny them contracts, jobs, and funding and to target anyone providing them material support.
-
Texas fight over CAIR stokes broader Islamophobia debate
PoliticalReporting highlights how Abbott’s terror label fits into years of Texas battles over Muslim communities, including investigations of a planned Muslim-led development near Dallas and rising anti‑Islam rhetoric.
-
Abbott orders criminal investigations into CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood
Law EnforcementAbbott directs the Texas Department of Public Safety to investigate the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR for alleged terrorist and criminal activities, including supposed efforts to impose sharia law in Texas.
-
CAIR sues Texas over terrorist designation
LegalCAIR’s Dallas–Fort Worth and Austin chapters file a federal lawsuit arguing Abbott’s proclamation violates the Constitution and Texas law by punishing political views and restricting land ownership based on ideology.
-
Texas labels CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood ‘terrorist’ and ‘criminal’ groups
Executive ActionGovernor Greg Abbott issues a proclamation designating CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organizations under Texas law, banning them from acquiring land and threatening civil and criminal penalties.
-
Supreme Court lets Arkansas anti‑boycott law stand
Legal PrecedentThe Supreme Court declines to review an appeals court ruling upholding Arkansas’s law penalizing contractors who boycott Israel, even as other federal courts strike down similar laws in Kansas, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.
-
Kansas anti‑BDS law blocked as unconstitutional
Legal PrecedentA federal judge halts Kansas’s law forcing state contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel, ruling it violates First Amendment protections for political boycotts. Kansas later narrows the law.
-
Hamas attack on Israel sparks new U.S. political backlash
BackgroundHamas militants kill around 1,200 people in Israel, prompting a devastating war in Gaza. Texas and Florida later cite Hamas and the war to justify linking CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism.
-
Holy Land Foundation shut down as terrorism-financing case targets Muslim charities
BackgroundFederal authorities close the Holy Land Foundation, once the largest U.S. Muslim charity, accusing it of funneling money to Hamas. The case fuels a post‑9/11 crackdown on Muslim organizations and later controversy over CAIR’s brief listing as an unindicted co‑conspirator.
-
CAIR launches as national Muslim civil rights group
BackgroundThe Council on American-Islamic Relations is founded in Washington, D.C., eventually building about 25 chapters nationwide focused on civil rights litigation and advocacy.
-
Muslim Brotherhood founded in Egypt
BackgroundThe Muslim Brotherhood begins as a Sunni Islamist movement focused on social services and political reform in Egypt, later spreading branches across the Middle East and beyond.
Scenarios
Federal Courts Strike Down State Terror Labels on CAIR
Discussed by: AP, Reuters, Guardian analysts, civil liberties lawyers following the Texas and Florida lawsuits
In this scenario, federal judges quickly issue injunctions in the Texas and Florida cases, finding that branding a domestic civil rights group a terrorist organization for its speech and associations violates the First Amendment and is preempted by federal authority over terror designations. States are forced to rescind the proclamations or narrow them into largely symbolic resolutions with no practical effect. The rulings become key precedents limiting how far governors can go in using contracting, land, and employment powers to punish advocacy groups they oppose.
States Double Down, Export the Playbook to Other Conservative Strongholds
Discussed by: Conservative commentators and political strategists who championed anti‑BDS and anti‑“sharia law” bills
Here, early court challenges sputter—perhaps judges accept states’ arguments that they are merely regulating economic relationships, as some courts have done with anti‑boycott laws. DeSantis’s and Abbott’s moves become a model for other Republican governors and legislatures, which start exploring their own “terror” labels for CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood–linked entities, and possibly other activist groups tied to hot‑button causes. The immediate legal bite varies by state, but the political signal is clear: being tagged a “terrorist” organization by a state government becomes a new weapon in America’s culture wars, chilling donors and partners even without federal backing.
Supreme Court Takes a Landmark Case on State Power and ‘Terrorist’ Labels
Discussed by: Constitutional scholars drawing parallels to NAACP v. Alabama and anti‑BDS litigation
If lower courts split—some striking down the Texas and Florida orders, others upholding narrower versions—the Supreme Court could be pushed to resolve whether states can effectively create their own terror designations for domestic advocacy groups. A broad ruling might either firmly bar states from punitive labels that target political viewpoints or, conversely, bless expansive state discretion over contracting and land‑use criteria. Either way, the decision would reverberate beyond Muslim groups, shaping how far red and blue states can go in punishing organizations tied to movements like BDS, fossil‑fuel divestment, or abortion access.
Historical Context
NAACP v. Alabama and the Fight Over ‘Subversive’ Groups
1956–1958What Happened
In the late 1950s, Alabama tried to drive the NAACP out of the state by demanding its membership lists and restricting its ability to operate. The NAACP refused, was held in contempt, and fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1958 ruled that forcing disclosure would chill freedom of association and violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Outcome
Short term: The NAACP avoided surrendering its membership lists and continued operating in Alabama.
Long term: The case became a bedrock precedent: states cannot casually target advocacy groups’ core freedoms, especially when their politics are unpopular.
Why It's Relevant
It shows how states have long used procedural tools to cripple disliked civil rights groups—and how the Court can step in when state power goes too far.
Post‑9/11 Terror Designations Against Muslim Charities
2001–2010What Happened
After 9/11, the federal government froze assets and shut down several Muslim charities, including the Holy Land Foundation, on allegations of providing “material support” to terrorism. Trials featured complex evidence and blurred lines between humanitarian aid and alleged backing for Hamas, culminating in convictions after an initial mistrial. Many Muslims saw the crackdown as collective punishment that scared donors away from legitimate charities.
Outcome
Short term: Prominent Muslim organizations were shuttered or stigmatized, and their leaders faced long prison sentences.
Long term: The episode left a lasting chill on Muslim civil society fundraising and fueled skepticism about broad terrorism powers used against unpopular groups.
Why It's Relevant
Texas and Florida are now wielding the emotionally charged language of terrorism not through federal law but through state executive orders, raising similar fears of guilt by association—this time against a civil rights group instead of a charity.
State Anti‑BDS Laws and the Battle Over Political Boycotts
2017–2023What Happened
Dozens of states passed laws requiring contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel, targeting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. Civil liberties groups sued, arguing that conditioning contracts on political positions violates the First Amendment. Some courts blocked or forced revisions to these laws, while an appeals court upheld Arkansas’s version and the Supreme Court declined to intervene.
Outcome
Short term: Contractors faced loyalty oaths, and the legality of such conditions split courts across the country.
Long term: States learned they could sometimes use economic leverage to punish disfavored activism, but also that courts might push back when speech burdens were obvious.
Why It's Relevant
The CAIR designations take the same instinct—using contracts and land rules to police ideology—and supercharge it by adding the explosive term “terrorist organization,” setting up another round of constitutional trench warfare.