LEARNING OBJECTIVES/ GOALS/ SWBAT STANDARD(S): 12.1 Students explain the fundamental principles and moral values of American democracy. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/ GOALS/ SWBAT Explain the Constitution’s guarantees of assembly and petition. Summarize how government can limit the time, place, and manner of assembly. Compare and contrast the freedom-of-assembly issues that arise on public versus private property. Explore how the Supreme Court has interpreted freedom of association.

A BULLDOG ALWAYS Commitment Attitude CARES Respect Encouragement Safety

Key Terms Freedom of association: the right to join with others to promote political, economic, and social causes

Additional Key Terms assemble: to gather with one another civil disobedience: the act of violating the law in an intentional but nonviolent way to protest a law or public policy content neutral: a requirement that allows the government to regulate assemblies based on time, place, and manner of assembly but not on the basis of what might be said

Introduction How has the Supreme Court ruled on assembly and petition cases? In general, the Court protects the right of peaceful assemblies and petitions. Governments have the right to set rules on how, when, and where assemblies can take place, including requiring permits. People do not have the right to trespass or to assemble or petition on private property.

Guided Reading The (1). 1st Amendment guarantees the right of the people to(2.) assemble, peaceably and to petition government for (3.) redress of grievances.

Constitutional Guarantees The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and to petition the government. The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause extends these rights to citizens of every state. The Constitution does not protect assemblies or petitions that endanger life, property, or public safety.

Guided Reading The (4.) 14th Amendment extends this protection to actions by State and local governments. However, the Court has allowed government to place reasonable limits on these rights in the form of (5.) time-place-manner regulations.

Examples Assemblies include public demonstrations as well as organizations such as political parties and interest groups. Petitions can include letters, lobbying, and advertisements. Peaceful marches and parades are protected forms of assembly.

Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience involves knowingly breaking the law in a nonviolent way to protest a law or public policy. The courts have held as a general rule that civil disobedience is not a constitutionally protected right. Those who take part in civil disobedience must accept the legal consequences of their actions.

Guided Reading For example, parades cannot be held near courthouses when court is in session if they are (6.) intended to influence the Court's proceedings. But government regulation of the right of assembly must be precisely drawn and (7.) fairly administered.

Limits on Assembly Checkpoint: How has the Supreme Court limited the time, place, and manner of assembly? Governments can decide when, where, and how assemblies can take place in order to keep the public peace. Government rules must be specific and fairly administered. Government rules must also be content neutral. They cannot regulate gatherings based on what might be said. Checkpoint Answer: The Supreme Court has upheld the right of governments at all levels to set rules restricting the time, place, and manner of assembly, but these rules must be (a) specifically worded, (b) fairly administered to everyone seeking to assemble, and [c] content neutral. 12

Guided Reading In addition, while government can regulate assembly on the basis of (8.) time, place, or manner, it cannot regulate on the basis of (9.) what is said.

Public Demonstrations Demonstrations tend to take place in public places such as streets, sidewalks, parks, or public buildings. This can conflict with the normal use of these facilities or streets. The subject of a demonstration can also lead to public arguments. The Supreme Court thus allows governments to require advance notice and permits for demonstrations on public property.

Guided Reading Most demonstrations take place in public places because (10.) it is the public whom the demonstrators want to influence.

Gregory v. Chicago, 1969 In 1969, a group marched from Chicago’s city hall to the mayor’s house to protest segregation in the city’s schools. A crowd of several hundred bystanders gathered to protest against and throw objects at the marchers. The police, fearing violence, arrested the marchers for disorderly conduct when they refused to leave. The Court ruled that the violent bystanders, not the peaceful marchers, were disturbing the peace.

Guided Reading However, the Court has held that it is permissible for the government to require demonstrators to give (11.) advance notice and acquire (12.) permits before demonstrating in public places.

Other Court Cases Anti-abortion groups often hold demonstrations to try to discourage women from going to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court has ruled that judges and state laws may impose buffer zones limiting how close demonstrators may come to clinics. These measures fall within the government’s power to limit how, when, and where assemblies take place. NOTE TO TEACHERS: The second bullet deals with the Court rulings in Madsen v. Women’s Health Services, Inc., 1994 and Hill v. Colorado, 2000.

Guided Reading In the case of Gregory v. Chicago, 1969, the Court held that demonstrators cannot be charged with disorderly conduct as long as they (13.) acted peacefully, even if their actions lead to (14.) disorder.

Private Property People do not have the right to assemble or petition on private property without permission. No one has the absolute constitutional right to hand out leaflets or ask for petition signatures in a shopping mall. However, the courts can rule that shopping center owners should give permission for the reasonable exercise of the right to petition. NOTE TO TEACHER: The key case on this issue is Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, 1972

Private and Public Property The right to peacefully demonstrate on public property is constitutionally guaranteed, yet demonstrations on private property are not constitutionally guaranteed.

Guided Reading In more recent years, cases have forced on demonstrations at (15.) abortion clinics. The Court has held that local ordinances can require a buffer zone to avoid blocking access to them. (note in June of 2014, the Court reversed its buffer-zone decision)

Private and Public Property Why has the Court ruled differently on public and private property demonstrations? Privately owned places, like shopping centers, are not “places of public assembly” and thus, no one has a constitutional right to do such things as hand out political leaflets or ask people to sign petitions in those places. Yet, many State constitutions encourage businesses to allow petition. In that event, there is no violation of the property owners’ rights.

Guided Reading Demonstrations on (16.) private property, such as shopping malls, are viewed differently by the Court. The Court has ruled the State supreme courts may interpret State constitutions in such a way as to allow (17.) reasonable exercise of the right of petition on private property.

Freedom of Association Checkpoint: What is the right of association? The right to join with others to promote political, economic, and social causes. It has been upheld as a constitutional right by the Supreme Court. People cannot be fired for belonging to associations and do not have to reveal them to practice law. Associations do not have to accept members if doing so would contradict the beliefs of the association. Checkpoint Answer: The constitutional right to join with others to promote political, economic, and social causes. 25

Guided Reading Key Terms 18 Assemble to gather in groups 19 Content neutral not related to what is said 20 guarantee of association the right to associate with others to promote causes

Review Now that you have learned how the Supreme Court has ruled on assembly and petition cases, go back and answer the Chapter Essential Question. How can the judiciary balance individual rights with the common good?