Freedom of Assembly: Know Justice Know Peace

✊ From Selma to “No Kings”

What do the Civil Rights marches of the 1960s, the George Floyd protests of 2020, and the modern No Kings rallies have in common — besides the fact that at least one person always brings a drum they swear everyone wants to hear?

They’re all part of America’s long, messy, and occasionally musical story of freedom of assembly — the right to gather, protest, and associate with whoever you please… or refuse to associate with whoever you please.

When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they gave us this deceptively simple line:

“The right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

Sounds straightforward, right? Spoiler: it’s not.
If you’ve ever been stuck in a group project, you already know — assembly can get complicated.

🎓 I Went to Law School So You Don’t Have To

Hi, I’m Jennie, and in this series, I take a closer look at the First Amendment — what it protects, what it doesn’t, and how it shapes real-world activism.

I’ve spent most of my adult life exercising the peaceable assembly part: from Take Back the Night marches and the Muslim Ban protests, to Standing Rock, #MeToo, and the Black Lives Matter marches of 2020.

I’ve been tear-gassed, maced, and shot with “less-than-lethal” rounds — all while marching peacefully in solidarity. And every single time, one truth stood tall:

Every protest starts peacefully until law enforcement arrives.

So let’s unpack how the courts have interpreted this right — from the NAACP in the 1950s to modern donor-privacy and protest-surveillance battles — and what “peaceable assembly” really means in 2025.

(Disclaimer: This isn’t legal advice. It won’t help you on your Con Law exam, but it might win you arguments at brunch.)

⚖️ Part I: When the Government Punishes Association

Case: NAACP v. Alabama (1958)

In the Jim Crow South, Alabama tried to force the NAACP to hand over its membership list — names, addresses, everything — claiming it was for “administrative” reasons.

The Supreme Court saw through it. The justices ruled that forced disclosure would chill people’s willingness to join a civil-rights organization. When government action scares people away from association, that’s a First Amendment violation.

Fast-forward sixty-plus years. Replace paper files with spreadsheets and hacked databases, and we’re still asking:

Can the state make you reveal who’s in your group?

💰 Part II: Disclosure in the 21st Century

Case: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021)

California told nonprofits to disclose their top donors “for oversight.” The Supreme Court said: “Sure, Jan.”

The Court struck it down, holding that blanket donor disclosure burdens the freedom of association because it could deter participation. When people fear harassment, they stop donating — and that’s a constitutional problem.

In other words,

You can’t protect democracy by scaring people out of it.

Yes, campaign-finance laws (like Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) still require transparency. But Bonta signals a strong modern tilt toward privacy in association.

So the next time you donate to a cause, remember: it’s the NAACP and a libertarian think tank — strange bedfellows — who helped keep your name off a government spreadsheet.

🎓 Part III: Compelled Association — “You Will Join This Club and You Will Like It”

Case: Board of Regents v. Southworth (2000)

At the University of Wisconsin, students had to pay mandatory fees supporting campus groups of all ideologies. Some objected — “Why should I fund causes I disagree with?”

The Supreme Court said that’s fine, as long as the funding process is viewpoint-neutral. You’re not paying for their message — you’re paying for the marketplace of ideas.

Then came Janus v. AFSCME (2018). A state employee, Mark Janus, argued he shouldn’t be forced to pay union fees supporting political positions he opposed. The Court agreed.

The result? Public employees can’t be required to fund union speech without affirmative consent.

💡 Takeaway: The First Amendment protects not just what you say, but what you refuse to say — or fund.
(Unless it’s a group project. Sorry. Brad still does nothing.)

🚫 Part IV: Anti-Discrimination and the Right to Exclude

Sometimes the question isn’t who you must include — but who you’re allowed to exclude.

• Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984): Minnesota required a civic group to admit women. The Court said yes — the Jaycees weren’t intimate or expressive enough to qualify for exemption.

• Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995): Parade organizers could exclude a gay-rights group; the parade itself was expressive speech.

• Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000): The Boy Scouts could revoke a gay scoutmaster’s membership because inclusion would alter the group’s expressive message.

That’s the doctrine of expressive association — your group can exclude if inclusion changes your message.

Since 2005, courts have revisited this tension in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018), where anti-discrimination and free-expression rights collided.

If including someone changes your message, the government usually can’t force it. If it only changes your guest list, that’s different.

✊ Part V: Assembly in the Age of Hashtags

When millions marched after George Floyd’s murder, they were exercising the most visible form of assembly. Behind those marches were organizations — formal or loose — relying on freedom of association to operate without fear.

Modern surveillance and protest-tracking laws echo the same old battle:

Where’s the line between “public safety” and chilling dissent?

Whether it’s a BLM march, a climate rally, or a No Kings protest, the constitutional logic is the same. The First Amendment protects the right to gather, organize, and speak — without being punished for it.

Because at its core, the freedom of assembly isn’t just about what you say.
It’s about who you say it with.

🕊️ Conclusion: “We the People” — and Whoever We Choose to Hang Out With

Every protest — from Selma to Standing Rock, from 2020 to 2025 — traces back to that same 1791 promise: the right to assemble peacefully.

This freedom is how democracy breathes.
Even if, lately, it’s been gasping through tear gas.

Sometimes, the best thing a government can do is listen — not control, not surveil — when people march and speak.

So next time you see a protest, remember: it’s not chaos. It’s citizenship in motion.

And if you learned something (or at least got a laugh), share this post and tell me:
What’s one group you’d never join, no matter what?