When Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers signed AB 446 into law on Friday, the state drew a clear legal line in the sand that may have already ripped through a Milwaukee courtroom where a father and son stood before a judge this week for destroying a mural that fused the Star of David with a swastika.
The new law, now titled Wisconsin Act 143, codifies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism into Wisconsin state statute. The IHRA definition — adopted by the Alliance on May 26, 2016 — reads: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The definition is accompanied by 11 illustrative examples, several of which speak directly to the kind of imagery that became the flashpoint in Milwaukee: holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel, using symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel, and drawing comparisons between contemporary Israeli policy and the policies of the Nazis.
The law directs every Wisconsin state agency, local governmental unit, and public employee to apply the IHRA definition — including its examples — when evaluating evidence of discriminatory intent under any law, ordinance, or policy prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin, or when applying enhanced criminal penalties for bias-motivated crimes.
David Soffer, Director of State Engagement for the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), called the signing a milestone. “Since policymakers chose clarity and consistency in the fight against antisemitism, Jewish Wisconsinites are safer today,” he said in a statement. “AB 446 gives public institutions a common reference point to recognize anti-Jewish bias when it surfaces so responses can be timely, fair, and grounded in established standards.” Soffer also stressed that the law leaves First Amendment protections fully intact.
Wisconsin now joins 16 other states that have codified the IHRA definition into law. A total of 37 states have adopted or endorsed it in some form, according to a database maintained by the Antisemitism Research Center at CAM. Since April 2025 alone, seven states — Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and now Wisconsin — have enacted new legislation on the matter, part of what CAM describes as a coordinated national effort that included a first-ever State Leadership Summit on Antisemitism convened in Kansas City, Missouri, last June.
On Wednesday, just two days before the signing, Judge Jack Davila sentenced 74-year-old Peter Mehler and his 43-year-old son Zechariah Mehler in connection with the destruction of a mural painted on property owned by Palestinian-American Ihsan Atta. The mural, positioned near Holton and Locust streets in Milwaukee, depicted a Star of David merged with a swastika — imagery that Atta said was intended to draw attention to the war in Gaza, and that the Mehlers, who are Jewish, called a hate crime against their community.
In September 2024, surveillance footage showed the Mehlers taking an axe and a sledgehammer to the mural. The footage also showed Zechariah giving the camera a double middle-finger salute. He returned the following day with a pry bar to finish the job. Atta says the mural cost more than $12,000.
Both men pleaded no contest or guilty to misdemeanor criminal damage to property. Peter Mehler was fined $50. Zechariah received a withheld sentence and 25 hours of community service. Together they were ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution to Atta.
The sentencing itself was charged. Atta, the property owner, acknowledged from the stand that he supports Hamas — a designated terrorist organization — and was twice warned by the judge before deputies removed him from the courtroom and then brought him back.
Zechariah Mehler addressed the court directly. “I was convinced it would eventually escalate into violence against my community, here, throughout the United States, throughout the world,” he said. “The rule of law is the firmament that we stand on that keeps our society together and safe, and to that rule of law I submit myself even as I raise these concerns.”
The defense argued the mural was designed to incite violence against Jewish people, and that the Mehlers knew they were breaking the law but felt a moral obligation to act.
The case landed in a legal gray zone. Without a codified framework for defining antisemitism, the court had limited tools for evaluating whether the mural itself constituted anti-Jewish discrimination — or whether destroying it could be assessed in that context. Wisconsin Act 143 changes that. Going forward, any agency or official evaluating such a case would be required to consider whether imagery combining the Star of David with a Nazi swastika — one of the IHRA definition’s clearest illustrative examples of antisemitism — constitutes evidence of discriminatory intent.
