The right to protest and state constitutions
State Court Report
An up-to-date resource for context and commentary about notable cases, legal trends, and cutting-edge scholarship.
As I’m sure State Court Report readers are well aware, universities across the country have been roiled by campus protests over the war in Gaza. State constitutions are part of the legal framework that governs how these protesters can behave and how universities and the police can respond. But with the exception of California, where state law applies the free speech protections of the state and federal constitutions to students, most state courts haven’t yet done much to develop state doctrines related to the rights of protesters either on or off campus, other than to interpret state constitutional provisions in lockstep with the First Amendment.
What would a state constitutional law of protest look like? A look at states’ First Amendment analogues and some of the ways that state courts have drawn distinctions with federal law to date offers some clues about what we might see going forward.
To begin with, there’s a strong argument for thinking about state constitutional rights to speech and assembly independently from the First Amendment, because the provisions themselves are very different. In addition to limiting government restrictions on speech, most state constitutions, like New York’s, include some version of an affirmative right: that individuals “may freely speak, write and publish” their views on all subjects while being “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Citizens in nearly every state also enjoy some version of a “right to assemble in a peaceable manner.” Speech and assembly rights typically aren’t grouped together in a single provision but appear in different sections of the constitution.
Drawing on these textual differences, a handful of state courts have held that while the First Amendment generally only applies to government action, their state’s constitution also brings private actors under the ambit of its free speech protections. In New Jersey, for example, the state supreme court ruled that Princeton University couldn’t bar a non-student from distributing political materials on campus. The state constitution, the court explained, bars “unreasonably restrictive or oppressive conduct on the part of private entities” when they have opened their property to use by the public. California embraced a similar standard in ruling that a private shopping mall couldn’t throw out students seeking signatures for a petition opposing a United Nations resolution against Zionism, while making clear that the mall could establish time, place, and manner rules. Oregon likewise interpreted its state constitution to provide a right to collect signatures in a private shopping mall for a ballot petition.
These rulings are significant because they soften what’s a hard line in federal law: that government action is required in order to establish a First Amendment violation. While the state court rulings are clear that private institutions have property and other interests that justify greater limits on speech than those permitted to public institutions, state constitutions still place limits on nongovernment actors. This opens up the possibility that even private universities and other nonstate actors may need to consider state speech and assembly rights in how they write and enforce policies around protest.
State constitutions may also place a higher bar on time, place, and manner restrictions on speech and assembly than the federal Constitution, although to date most states have followed federal standards. Last year, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a town’s public comment policy, which required remarks in public meetings to be “respectful and courteous, free of rude, personal, or slanderous remarks.” Pointing to the state constitution’s Assembly Clause, which “reflects the lessons and the spirit of the American Revolution” and arose “out of fierce opposition to governmental authority,” the court held that “rude, personal, and disrespectful” remarks were protected as part of the state right to assembly.
Similar principles can have implications for police interactions as well. When a woman was charged with disorderly conduct after screaming profanities at a police officer who broke up a noisy party, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that her speech and conduct were protected by the state constitution. Criticism of police is political speech, the court explained, and the charges therefore put a burden on “a core constitutional value” and couldn’t be enforced against her.
Finally, state constitutions may also have implications for employees’ protest rights. For example, while the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment generally doesn’t apply to speech by public employees who are speaking as part of their official duties, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that these employees still enjoy state constitutional protections. And under a statute that applies constitutional protections to private workplaces, private employees are also protected.
We don’t yet have a comprehensive set of state constitutional principles governing protest. Future development of the law is likely to be rooted in how individual states articulate their own constitutional values — although similar speech and assembly language across many state constitutions could also encourage state courts to look to each other’s analyses. And of course, assessments of individual protests are likely to be highly fact dependent. But what’s also clear is that as protests continue, we shouldn’t overlook state constitutions.
A Surprising Tool for Protecting Abortion Access and Trans Health Care
Shortly after enactment of the Affordable Care Act, several states amended their constitutions to protect the right to make personal health care decisions. The amendments were designed to counter and limit the effects of the federal law. Now, some advocates are arguing that a plain reading of those amendments protects access to medical treatments for trans youth and abortion rights, according to attorney Julia R. Livingston. READ MORE
Scholarship Roundup: Election Litigation, Voting Rights, and More
An essay collection on revitalizing state constitutions, analyses for increasing voting rights protections, and a proposal for promoting judicial independence during retention elections are just a few of the highlights in a roundup written by Miriam Seifter, professor of law and faculty codirector of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. READ MORE
Pushback on Tax Foreclosure Sometimes Misses the Point
In 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the government violated the state constitution’s Takings Clause when it kept windfall profits from a foreclosure sale beyond the taxes owed by the homeowner. Now the court is set to decide whether that case applies retroactively. But, writes Michigan tax foreclosure expert Alex Alsup, the true injustice in the system “isn’t the occasional auction windfall but the statutory 18 percent interest (compounded annually), penalties, and fees paid by delinquent taxpayers in the state” — none of which are at issue in Michigan’s recent takings litigation. READ MORE
Plummeting Productivity at the Wisconsin Supreme Court
By the end of its current term this summer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is projected to issue about 16 decisions, less than a fifth of its average output in the early 2000s. Marquette University history professor Alan Ball explores the possible reasons for the low output, from decreasing petitions for review to discord between justices since the court flipped to a liberal majority last year. The “astonishing” drop in decisions, Ball concludes, is likely “something of an aberration rather than the new normal.” READ MORE
State Supreme Court ‘Shadow Dockets’
You might know about the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket,” which uses non-merits orders to make significant jurisprudential changes. But it’s not just the federal high court. “State-level shadow dockets have a broader reach because state courts possess a wider variety of administrative and procedural powers,” writes Adam Sopko, a staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at University of Wisconsin Law School. READ MORE
A Conversation with Former New York Court of Appeals Judge Albert Rosenblatt
The most recent installment of State Court Report’s interview series with current and former state justices features Judge Albert Rosenblatt, who served on New York’s high court from 1999 to 2006. He spoke about the need to connect lawyers to low-income people who need them and the importance of understanding the expanded rights many state constitutions provide. READ MORE
You May Have Missed
Notable Cases
Midsouth Association of Independent Schools v. Parents for Public Schools, Mississippi Supreme Court Ruled that nonprofit organization Parents for Public Schools lacked standing to challenge the expenditure of Covid-19 relief funds on private schools because they could not demonstrate an adverse impact. // Mississippi Free Press
Joshua v. State, Nebraska Supreme Court Ruled that three siblings who spent years of their childhood in the foster care system, where they suffered sexual and physical abuse, were barred by sovereign immunity from bringing claims against the state relating to the abuse. // Nebraska Examiner
Fair Maps Nevada v. Jeng, Nevada Supreme Court Upheld a lower court order disqualifying two ballot initiatives, either of which would have established a seven-member independent committee to draw district lines for both congressional and state races, because the initiatives would require monetary expenditure with no mechanism for raising those funds in violation of the state constitution. // Democracy Docket
People v. Flores, California Supreme Court Ruled that trying to avoid contact with or being seen by police is not enough to allow police to detain a person or hold them for questioning. A man ducking behind a car upon spotting police officers was not sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for his detention. // ABC News
Stefanik v. Hochul, New York Appellate Division, Third Department Upheld a 2023 law that allows mail-in voting for all New York voters during the state’s early voting period. Republican elected officials and organizations had argued that the law expanded absentee voting beyond state constitutional limitations. // Bloomberg Law
Oral arguments for prominent cases are previewed monthly, and the resource is updated as arguments are added to the calendar. The May preview is here.
You can find briefs and opinions from notable state constitutional lawsuits in our State Case Database.
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 646-292-8310 [email protected]
Did you get this message forwarded from a friend? Sign up here.