The plaintiffs alleged that the boycott violates Washington D.C. law, governing nonprofit corporations and that the adoption of the boycott violated the ASA's internal rules and procedures. The lawsuit alleged that the boycott fell outside the scope of the ASA's corporate charter and stated mission, a type of legal argument known as ultra vires.[1] Kontorvich argued: "To be clear, this is not about silencing or stopping criticism of Israel, or in any way discouraging it. It is about non-profit corporations abiding by their own rules."[2] The lawsuit characterized the defendants as "insurgents" who through "concerted effort" had sought to convert ASA "into a political advocacy organization".[citation needed]