Freedom of Assembly Elizabeth Atkinson 3rd Period

Facts 1.Often overlaps with “Freedom of Speech”cases 2.the individual right or ability to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas. 3.The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, political right and civil liberty. 4.Emphasized in the first amendment (1791) 5.Often goes hand-in-hand with 14th Amendment Due Process Clause

English Common Law RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY IN ENGLAND The right of assembly has, from an historical point of view, always been closely connected with the right of free speech and the right of petition.10 As early as 1215, with the signing of the Magna Charta, this right of petition has been effectively recognized and used as a tool for enabling individuals to seek redress for real or imagined wrongs committed against them."" But, Dicey, seeking to rigidly distinguish between the right to petition and the right to assemble, has stated in very definite terms that the English Constitution contains no such specific right of public meeting or assembly. The right of assembly, then, is little more than the end result of a judicial attitude which the courts have taken regarding the individual's fundamental liberty of speech. There is, furthermore, no special law of any kind which allows, A, B and C to meet in the open air or elsewhere for a lawful purpose “In 1619, Lambard stated the basic common law attitude as regards the act of assembly in England. 14 "An unlawful assembly is.of the companie of three or more persons, disorderly coming together, forcibly to commit an unlawful act, as to beat a man or to enter. upon his possession or the like.".'5 In passing on a question of assembly, the jurists usually found it necessary to consider both the intent and purpose of those assembled and whether their behavior was such that it terrorized the other people in the area who were not participating in the assembly. 16” “ The very first English statute dealing exclusively with unlawful assemblies, however, was that of 13 Henry IV, 1412,1s later re-enforced by an Act of 2 Henry V, ' During George I's reign, 20 a statute was passed entitled, "Act for preventing Tumults and riotious Assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing [of] the rioters." 21 In essence, the Act provided that if twelve or more persons were unlawfully assembled they were to disperse within an hour after the reading of a Proclamation,' or else be held guilty of a felony.” “ A may go where he pleases, so long as he commits no trespass” (Henry IV)

De Jonge v. Oregon. (1937)

Unanimous for De Jonge Police raided Communist Party meeting and arrested De Jonge Indicted on “criminal syndicalism” statute (advocates crime and illegal change) De Jonge argued acquittal on insufficient evidence Oregon State Supreme Court rules that De Jonge conducted unlawful teaching Supreme Court ruled that Oregon Statute violates due process clause in 14th Amendment and 1st (free speech and peaceable assembly)

Unanimous for De Jonge 1934 meeting discussing jail conditions and maritime strike in Portland De Jonge’s only offense was conducting a meeting under the support for the Communist Party Free Speech and Assembly are the important things to consider Significant because although unpopular political views, constitutional rights dominate Conclusion: Oregon’s criminal syndicalism statute against De Jonge violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)

Unanimous for New Hampshire Group led by Willis Cox (1939) wanted an ‘information march’ in a hall in Manchester, NH. New Hampshire requires permit for parades, processions, and gatherings in public. Cox and friends had no such permit. Conclusion: NH’s asking of them to leave violated neither the first amendment nor the 14th’s Due Process Clause. (Maintain NH’s right to enforce order and safety)

NAACP v. Alabama (1958)

Unanimous for NAACP AL required that the NAACP reveal the names and addresses of all of its member in the state. AL wanted to stop NAACP from operating AL violated the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause by attempting to hinder their right to assemble Conclusion: Alabama is unjustified and in the wrong.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)

8-1 Decision for Edwards South Carolina State House 187 peaceful black protesters against segregation Arrested by over 30 officers and convicted on ‘breach of peace’ Blocked no traffic and were singing patriotic songs Conclusion: The arrests violated the freedoms of assembly, speech, and petition by 1st and 14th Amendments.

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972)

5-4 Decision for Lloyd Corp. Portland, OR Vietnam Protester Tanner and friends were distributing handbills within Lloyd Center Mall Lloyd prohibited handbills Mall security guard asked them to leave or face possible arrest Filed suit against District of Oregon, then appealed to Supreme Court Conclusion: Free speech and assembly were not violated because Tanner’s operations were unrelated to privately-owned mall. Could have protested on public sidewalks, but not private facilities meant for public use.

National Socialist Party Village of Skokie v. (1977)

5-4 Decision for National Socialists Knowledge of derogatory Anti-Jew Nazi march arose in Skokie Collin wrote letter to Skokie saying small protest about Parks while wearing Nazi uniforms and complying with police instruction Preliminary injunction by District Court of Cook County. Considered march could lead to violence. Nazi Party applied for IL Appellate Court but was denied. Supreme Court rules that IL Court improperly denied Nazi’s request for a stay in District Court’s injunction

5-4 Decision for National Socialists Half of Skokie pop. = Jewish (thousands who survived concentration camps) “ demonstration was to protest the Skokie Park District's ordinance requiring a bond of $350,000 to be posted prior to the issuance of a park permit. ” Number of Jews planned counter demonstration on same day National Socialists were denied appeal and could not participate in local injunction Concurring = No IL courts had considered merits of Nazi’s federal claim “...the Court also treated the Nazi Party's application for a stay as a petition for certiorari. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. ” Conclusion: Supreme Court went against lower court decisions and ruled that IL Court’s denial attempted to violate 1st Amendment Freedom of Assembly.

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

7-2 Decision for Bethel Dist. HS student Fraser used sexually suggestive metaphors to nominate a friend for class office at school assembly Bethel had a rule prohibiting obscene language and gestures that could interfere with education Fraser was suspended for 2 days Conclusion: School does not violate 1st Amendment by disciplining student. Schools are allowed to prohibit “lewd material.” Violates neither free speech or freedom of assembly.

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997)

5-3 for PCN Schenck and friends were continuously blockading and protesting in front of abortion clinics Restraining order = ineffective District Court created both fixed and floating buffer zones, largely limiting protest Appellate Court upheld District Court’s decision, so Supreme Court granted Schenck certiorari Supreme Court rules that “fixed buffer zones” were okay but “floating buffer zones were unconstitutional

5-3 Decision for PCN Pro-Choice Network filed to stop Schenck and friends “Fixed Buffer Zones” prohibited demonstrators from 15 feet in front of abortion clinic entrances or parking lots, preventing attacks and blockading doorways “Floating Buffer Zones” prohibited demonstrators from coming within 15 feet of people or vehicles seeking access to an abortion clinic Significant because similar issues are argued today like Pro-Life marches Concurring = Keep in moderation | Dissenting = Both buffer zones or Neither Conclusion: Floating buffer zones would create congestion and confusion, but Supreme Court upheld the “fixed buffer zones” ruling.

Boy Scouts of America Dale (2000) v.

5-4 Decision for Boy Scouts 1992 James Dale filed suit against Boy Scouts New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Boy Scouts were not in the wrong New Jersey Appellate Court ruled that NJ’s public accommodation laws applied b/c of Boy Scouts’ use of public entities Private or Public? Supreme Court rules that applying NJ’s public accommodation law violates Boy Scouts’ 1st Amendment rights

5-4 Decision for Boy Scouts Includes Freedom of Assembly/Association b/c NJ statue of practicing within public entities Majority opinion delivered by Rehnquist, "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." Forceable membership of James Dale would convey message inconsistent with Boy Scouts’ values First Amendment Concurring = Boy Scouts have right | Dissenting = Boy Scouts violated NJ statute Conclusion: Decision upheld b/c Boy Scouts is private despite occasionally operating on public entities. Significant b/c

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)

5-4 Decision for Martinez Hastings School of Law CA failed to recognize CLS as official school organization District court dismissed this case Appealed to US Courts of Appeal for Ninth Circuit. Ruled school’s conditions were reasonable. Supreme Court looked at precedent 2006 case. Supreme Court rules that college’s “all-comers” policy is reasonable and neutral

5-4 Decision for Martinez CLS refused to permit all students from joining the group Concurring = “plainly unconstitutional” | Dissenting = standards of political correctness are suppressing the choice of the unpopular group Assembly b/c not allowing them to meet under school rule Ninth Circuit contrary to Seventh Circuit’s 2006 CLS v. Walker? Similar to “Boy Scouts” significance Conclusion: School’s policy is neutral and does not violate First Amendment rights.

Citations "Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 14, "Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 14, George P. Smith II, The Development of the Right of Assembly - A Current Socio-Legal Investigation, 9 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 359 (1967), "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Patterson." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 14, "Cox v. New Hampshire." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 14, "Edwards v. South Carolina." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 14, "Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 14, "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 15, "National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 15, "De Jonge v. Oregon." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 15, "Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Feb 15, 2016.