“Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people to assemble…”
What it Protects
Beginning with Hague v. CIO the Court recognized that streets and parks have been “held in trust for the use of the public” for “assembly” and debate, and governments may regulate expression there only with content-neutral “time, place, and manner” rules that serve significant interests and leave open ample alternatives. “Mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion” cannot be the basis for a criminal charge absent speech that exceeds protected bounds.
What it Doesn’t Protect
The right of assembly “is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.” Governments may impose content-neutral time, place, and manner limits tied to interests like safety and access, and permit schemes must contain standards and be subject to effective judicial review. By contrast, vague rules have been invalidated—for example, the ordinance targeting “annoying” assemblies in Coates v. City of Cincinnati.
Background
In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to peaceful assembly and association and bars compelled association, according to The United Nations. Article 20 of the Declaration states that no government shall infringe upon the rights of its people to peacefully assemble, to join an organization, or to pressure individuals into joining an association. Likewise, the U.S. Constitution enumerates the freedom of assembly as one of the fundamental rights of the people.
Historical Context and Notable Cases
Dissenting movements, including suffrage, abolition, religious advocacy, and civil rights, have relied on the freedom of assembly regularly in their causes, according to the Free Speech Center.
One of the most notable cases on the grounds of assembly was the case of Hague v. CIO which set precedent for the doctrine used to review situations of freedom of assembly on public grounds. The most recent case was Coates v. City of Cincinnati, when SCOTUS ruled laws prohibiting loitering on public-owned land unconstitutional. But since 1971, no cases have been heard. No new cases on the grounds of freedom of assembly seen by SCOTUS in 50 years.
Freedom of Assembly in Modern Day
Since 1971, the freedom of assembly has stagnated in legal interpretations. The right is highly respected, but recent events demonstrate its weaknesses. In April 2024, college students formed peaceful encampments to protest for universities to divest in the Palestinian genocide. The vast majority of encampments were peaceful, but still, politicians labeled protestors as violent. Arrests followed, even when they respected precedent set by SCOTUS cases.
Other protests have seen similar treatment, including Anti-ICE protests, No Kings Protests, and Black Lives Matter protests, labeled as violent, extremist riots by media and politicians, despite their often non-violent actions. Whether it’s pro-Palestinian protestors, FAU campus anti-ICE marchers, or No Kings Protestors, the freedom of assembly definitionally should protect protestors from political violence or police retribution.
Although it is a fundamental freedom, many operate as though it’s wrapped within freedom of speech. Because of its overshadowed status, its power of protection has eroded over the past 50 years, leaving a hollow, empty shell where a freedom used to live.
Sign up to receive the OutFAU newsletter here
