The Founding Fathers established a framework of governance that was designed to protect the rights and liberties of the American people. Among the most fundamental of these rights is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to protest. The text of the First Amendment states:

​

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

​

At the heart of this provision lies the keyword “peaceably.” The Constitution does not protect violent protests, nor does it shield individuals who engage in riots or destruction under the guise of assembly. However, it remains vital to acknowledge that the right to protest is a constitutional right, protected under the First Amendment, and an essential function of a healthy democracy.

​

This explicit protection does not limit where or when people may exercise their right to assemble. The only conditions that the courts have recognized as lawful limitations involve narrowly tailored regulations designed to prevent imminent violence or unlawful activity. However, restricting peaceful protest based on arbitrary location-based rules directly contradicts the spirit of the First Amendment.

​

The historical roots of this right are deeply embedded in the revolutionary actions of the American colonists. Prior to the formation of the United States, the colonists exercised their right to assemble and protest against British rule, which ultimately led to the founding of the nation. James Madison underscored the significance of this right when he stated:

“The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.” Madison’s words reflect the Founding Fathers' commitment to ensuring that the people retain the ability to express their dissatisfaction with government policies and advocate for change. Without the right to protest, the very foundation of democracy would be undermined.

​

Throughout American history, various groups have exercised their right to peaceably assemble in pursuit of justice and reform. The civil rights movement, labor activists, religious organizations, the suffragist movement, and both major political parties have all utilized this fundamental right to challenge injustice and demand change. The ability to assemble and protest has been a driving force behind some of the most transformative moments in American history.

​

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the importance of the right to protest. In the landmark case of De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), the Court ruled:

“The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.” This ruling cemented the idea that the right to assemble is not merely auxiliary but one that holds the same weight and significance as the freedoms of speech and the press. The ability of individuals to gather, discuss, and advocate for change is fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society.

​

Despite its constitutional protection, the right to protest has often been challenged and suppressed throughout history. Governments, both at the state and federal levels, have attempted to curtail protests through restrictive laws, excessive force, and legal intimidation. However, the Supreme Court has consistently reinforced the principle that peaceful assembly is a protected right that cannot be infringed upon without just cause. Protests have continued to shape political discourse and influence policy. Whether it be demonstrations against war, environmental activism, or movements advocating for social justice, the right to peaceably assemble remains a crucial mechanism for civic engagement.

​

However, challenges to this right persist. In some cases, government entities have imposed restrictions on protests, citing concerns about public safety or national security. While reasonable regulations such as requiring permits for large gatherings may be lawful, outright suppression of peaceful protests contradicts the Constitution.

The courts have played a critical role in defining the scope and limits of the right to assemble. In cases such as Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that peaceful protests are a protected form of expression. Any attempts by the government to suppress such assemblies must be subjected to the highest level of scrutiny.

​

Recent actions by both the current and previous administrations have called into question the government's commitment to upholding this essential right. Student protesters demonstrating against Israel's occupation of Palestine have been met with accusations of criminal behavior, despite their adherence to lawful, peaceful protest. This crackdown on demonstrations is not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern in which the government selectively enforces the right to assemble based on political convenience.

​

One recent example that highlights the administration’s disregard for the right to assemble is the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested for protesting against Israel and calling for an end to the war in Palestine. The Constitution does not differentiate between American citizens and residents when defending the right to peaceably assemble. The protection granted under the First Amendment extends to all individuals on U.S. soil. Yet, the government has chosen to treat certain protesters as criminals simply because their message is politically inconvenient.

​

The president has further escalated this crackdown by announcing his intention to take action against those who protest at Tesla dealerships, as well as threatening deportation for those who demonstrate against the war in Palestine. Such statements directly contradict the principles enshrined in the Constitution. The government does not have the authority to determine which protests are acceptable based on the content of their message. A right that is only protected when it aligns with government interests is no right at all.

​

In Kootenai County, Idaho, Sheriff Robert Norris physically removed Teresa Borrenpohl for protesting in the GOP hall. Borrenpohl was exercising her constitutional right to assemble and voice her concerns, yet she was met with threats of pepper spray and forced removal. The justification for this action was not based on any imminent danger posed by Borrenpohl’s protest but rather on an arbitrary restriction of location.

​

The decision to forcibly remove a peaceful protestor demonstrates a clear abuse of power and disregard for constitutional protections. By criminalizing peaceful assembly in spaces deemed inconvenient by those in power, authorities set a dangerous precedent that threatens free expression and civic engagement. The First Amendment does not specify that protests must take place only in designated areas. The ability to assemble wherever grievances arise is a necessary component of effective advocacy. By physically removing protestors, authorities infringe upon constitutional rights and discourage political engagement.

​

The forced removal of Borrenpohl exemplifies a growing pattern of selective enforcement, wherein protests that challenge the status quo or question those in power are swiftly suppressed. If peaceful assembly is only protected when it aligns with governmental interests, then the principle of free expression is rendered meaningless.

Threatening peaceful demonstrators with force—whether through pepper spray, physical removal, or arrest—creates a chilling effect on protest. Citizens may become too fearful to engage in their constitutional rights, effectively silencing opposition and consolidating power among the ruling elite.

​

When examining the suppression of protests in contemporary America, it is essential to consider how past protests were received. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s faced extreme government resistance, with activists being jailed, beaten, and even killed. The suffragists who fought for women's right to vote were imprisoned and force-fed while on hunger strikes. Anti-Vietnam War protesters were met with police brutality, tear gas, and violence. At the time, these demonstrators were labeled as agitators and threats to national stability. However, history has vindicated their cause, recognizing them as courageous individuals who fought for progress.

​

The pattern of suppressing protests based on government interests is dangerous. It creates an environment in which only state-approved forms of dissent are allowed, effectively silencing opposition and eroding democratic principles. The right to protest must be protected regardless of whether the government agrees with the cause. If today's protests against Israel’s occupation and Tesla’s labor practices are deemed criminal, what prevents the government from targeting other movements in the future?

​

Furthermore, the consequences of suppressing protests extend beyond immediate legal ramifications. The chilling effect created by government crackdowns discourages citizens from exercising their constitutional rights out of fear of retaliation. If people believe that participating in a protest could lead to arrest, deportation, or other punitive measures, they are far less likely to speak out against injustice. This suppression of free expression fundamentally undermines the democratic process. The selective enforcement of protest rights also highlights the government's hypocrisy. Throughout history, the U.S. has often condemned other nations for cracking down on dissent. When authoritarian regimes suppress protests, American leaders are quick to criticize them for violating human rights. However, when similar tactics are employed at home, the same leaders justify their actions under the guise of national security or public order. This double standard weakens America's credibility as a global advocate for human rights and democracy.

​

The argument that protests must be controlled to maintain public order is not without merit. However, the government already has legal mechanisms in place to address unlawful behavior during protests, such as vandalism, violence, or threats. There is a clear distinction between peaceful demonstrations and criminal acts. By conflating the two, the government is engaging in a dangerous form of overreach that threatens the very foundation of democratic freedoms. To further illustrate the dangers of protest suppression, consider the implications of allowing the government to dictate which protests are acceptable. If a future administration were to outlaw protests against government corruption, environmental destruction, or racial injustice, citizens would have no recourse to challenge those abuses. The right to protest is not merely a privilege granted at the discretion of those in power—it is a fundamental preserved against tyranny.

​

Moreover, protests serve as a vital mechanism for social change. Many of the rights and freedoms enjoyed today were won through protests that challenged the status quo. Without protests, there would be no civil rights movement, no labor protections, no suffrage for women. The ability to assemble and demand change is not just a theoretical right—it is an essential tool for progress. The actions of the current and previous administrations in suppressing protests are a direct violation of the First Amendment. By criminalizing demonstrations against Israel’s occupation, targeting activists like Mahmoud Khalil, the case of Teresa Borrenpohl, and threatening deportation for those who dissent, the government is eroding the very freedoms that define American democracy. The right to protest must be upheld for all individuals, regardless of whether their message aligns with government interests. To allow the suppression of protests to continue unchecked is to pave the way for an authoritarian future in which dissent is no longer tolerated. As history has shown, the freedom to assemble is not just a constitutional right—it is a necessary pillar of a just and equitable society.

​

The United States was not founded on silence or submission—it was built on defiance, on the spirit of those who dared to challenge injustice. The very birth of this nation was forged in protest, from the Boston Tea Party to the fiery debates that led to the Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers did not simply accept the rule of a government that disregarded their rights; they stood against tyranny, they protested, and they fought to create a republic where the people, not the rulers, would hold power. The right to peaceably assemble is not an accident of history—it is a deliberate safeguard, written into the First Amendment by those who knew firsthand that governments, when left unchecked, will always seek to silence dissent. To protest is not to be unpatriotic; it is to engage in the very tradition that gave birth to this country.

​

But now, we are watching that right being stripped away. The government brands those who protest against its policies as criminals. It deports those who dare to speak out against war and injustice. It dictates when, where, and for what cause people may gather. This is not democracy—this is the very oppression that the American Revolution fought to overthrow.

​

If the people of 1776 had waited for permission to challenge British rule, there would be no United States. If abolitionists had remained silent, slavery would not have ended. If suffragists had accepted the status quo, women would still be without a voice. Every great movement for justice in this country began with protest. And now, as the government seeks to suppress this fundamental right, we must ask ourselves: Will we stand by and allow history to repeat itself?

The right to protest is not conditional. It does not exist only when the government agrees with the message. If we allow our leaders to decide which protests are permissible and which are not, then we no longer live in a free country—we live under rule, not representation.

America was born from protest. It thrives on the voices of those who refuse to accept injustice. And it will die if those voices are silenced.