Princeton’s proposed changes to public events rules raise serious First Amendment concerns

Dear Editor:

I am writing this letter in my personal capacity as a concerned citizen and constitutional law scholar. As the leader of Indivisible Princeton, I also have experience organizing large public assemblies in Princeton, including political events that have required coordination with the governor, the mayor, and other state and local officials. 

Background

Princeton is currently considering significant changes to how it regulates the use of public space, including protests, rallies, festivals, and other gatherings. Based on recent Council discussions and publicly available presentation materials (at pp. 123-132), the town appears to be moving toward a consolidated permitting framework that would merge what are currently distinct categories of “public events” and “public assemblies.”

That change may appear to be a technical administrative update. It is not.

It represents a fundamental shift in how expressive activity in Princeton is defined and protected.

From what has been publicly presented, the proposed ordinance would bring a wide range of public activity into a single permitting structure. That structure would treat expressive assemblies – political protests, demonstrations, rallies – the same as non-expressive public events such as festivals, sports events, and organized civic activities. 

By folding political protests and demonstrations into the same regulatory category as craft fairs or 5Ks, the town is proposing to normalize burdens on speech that the Constitution strictly forbids. The distinction is foundational: A festival is a choice; a protest is a right.

Although no draft ordinance has been released, the framework described in public materials appears to contemplate some form of cost recovery or reimbursement for police and other municipal expenses associated with permitted activity, including core political speech.

When a town conditions the exercise of First Amendment rights on a political organizer’s financial capacity, it creates a “pay-to-play” model for democracy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey recently analyzed a closely similar ordinance in West Caldwell that included comparable cost-recovery provisions and discretionary permitting authority. Its conclusion was blunt: such provisions are “glaringly unconstitutional.” When access to the public square depends on an individual’s financial capacity to absorb government-imposed costs, we no longer have a neutral marketplace of ideas. Instead, we have a system where only the well-funded can afford to be heard. The ACLU-NJ’s analysis – and the resulting public outcry – led to the withdrawal of the West Caldwell draft ordinance.

The ACLU-NJ’s constitutional analysis is directly relevant here. 

Beyond the financial barriers, the proposed rules grant broad administrative discretion to town officials. This creates several constitutional hazards:

Chilling Effect: When costs are unpredictable and conditions are vague, people simply stop organizing.

Inconsistent Enforcement: Broad discretion allows decisions to be shaped – even subconsciously – by the anticipated controversy of a protest’s message.

Co-Sponsorship Loophole: There is currently no clear standard for how the town will decide which events qualify for “co-sponsorship” (and thus cost exemptions), opening the door to excessive discretion and inconsistencies.

Courts have repeatedly held that while municipalities may regulate time, place, and manner of expression in public spaces, they may not structure those regulations in ways that burden constitutional rights or invite viewpoint-based discretion.

At the March 23 Council meeting, Councilwoman Mia Sacks stated the town’s work on this new ordinance is “close to the finish line.” However, before any ordinance is advanced, I respectfully ask that the Council consider several questions and requests.

Questions for the Council 

1. Why are “public events” and “public assemblies” being merged into a single regulatory category, and how will the town preserve the constitutional distinction between expressive and non-expressive activity within that framework?
2. What specific thresholds will trigger permitting requirements, particularly for spontaneous or rapidly organized expressive gatherings?
3. Will organizers of expressive assemblies be required to reimburse police or other municipal costs? If so, what standards govern how those costs are calculated, reviewed, and limited?
4. What constraints exist on administrative discretion in setting permit conditions, including decisions related to labor costs, insurance, staffing, or approval decisions themselves?
5. What constraints exist on administrative discretion to determine the proposed “co-sponsorship” designation and its associated fee exemptions?   
6. How will the town ensure that permitting decisions are not influenced – directly or indirectly – by anticipated public reaction to the content or viewpoint of the expression involved?

Requests

1. The town should clearly articulate how expressive assemblies including core political speech will be treated within the consolidated permitting system and what specific First Amendment safeguards will apply.
2. Any provisions relating to cost recovery or reimbursement for municipal services should include clear exemptions for political expression.
3. The requirement that permit applicants accept unlimited indirect or third-party liability should be removed from the town’s public assembly permit application.
4. The town should provide adequate time for public review and comment once a draft ordinance is released, given the constitutional significance of the issues involved.

Conclusion

This is not a technical matter. At stake are constitutional rights that belong to every resident, regardless of political affiliation. I urge all residents who share my concerns to attend the Council meeting on April 13 to remind our local government that its first duty is to uphold the Constitution and the rights that protect us all. 

Lynda G. Dodd