Princeton residents raise First Amendment concerns over potential event permit rule changes

Speakers urge officials not to impose fees or barriers on public gatherings and demonstrations

Residents packed the Princeton Council meeting Monday night to call on elected officials not to move forward with any ordinance that could impose fees or permit requirements on demonstrations, rallies, and community events.

The concerns stem from a proposal discussed at a March 23 council work session that would overhaul Princeton’s special events rules, consolidate regulations for parades and public assemblies, and allow the town to charge additional fees beyond the current $25 permit fee for police staffing, cleanup, and lost parking revenue.

While no ordinance has been formally introduced, the discussion last month alarmed residents, particularly comments about spontaneous gatherings, protests, and the possibility of requiring permits outside a 48-hour window after a “newsworthy event.”

Monday night, the issue dominated public comment.

Councilwoman Mia Sacks told the crowd that the earlier discussion had simply been misunderstood.

“Recent commentary has suggested that this initiative could restrict or burden free speech,” Sacks said. “That characterization is incorrect and reflects a misunderstanding of the discussion that took place during a recent council work session.”

Sacks said the discussion was focused on “cost recovery and permitting for non-expressive special events,” such as fairs, races, festivals, markets, and food trucks.

“These regulations must be narrowly tailored, content-neutral, and may not impose financial or administrative burdens that chill speech or vest unbounded discretion in municipal decision-makers,” she said. “Princeton remains firmly committed to ensuring that its public spaces remain open, accessible, and protected forums for free expression.”

But speaker after speaker said the earlier discussion had raised serious First Amendment concerns. A few speakers noted that they had reviewed the video footage of the March 23 discussion.

“We do not support measures that create barriers to protest or freedom of expression,” said Richard, speaking on behalf of Resistencia en Acción, an immigrant rights group based in Princeton. “Access to public life should not depend on income, status, or the ability to navigate additional restrictions.”

Richard urged council members to meet directly with organizers who regularly coordinate marches, vigils, and community actions.

“We would like the council to sit with us directly,” he said. “We believe meaningful solutions come from dialogue with those most impacted.”

Resident Joan Bird told council members she supports using public dollars to help cover the costs of rallies and public events.

“I am happy to have had my taxes go to pay the costs of protest rallies and public events,” Bird said.

She said uncertain or open-ended fees could deter smaller groups from organizing.

“I’m worried about the effect it would have on the ability of different organizations … to protest, rally, or have a public assembly,” she said.

Other residents challenged the town’s proposed distinction between expressive and non-expressive events.

“If I have a food truck at a rally, is that all of a sudden non-expressive?” one speaker asked. “It’s still not clear to me what events this is specifically meant to target.”

Jorge Torres sharply criticized the council’s approach.

“Even if you mean well, this is not progressive,” Torres said. “This is oppressive. This is exclusive.”

“Charging us, the community, to pay for overtime of the police or charging us because we wanted to express ourselves, that’s being oppressive instead of supporting free speech,” he said.

Rachel Schnur, a Princeton resident and doctoral student in history, framed the issue in broader constitutional terms.

“Our right to assemble, to protest the actions of our officials, does not come from the government. Full stop,” Schnur said. “It doesn’t even come from the Constitution.”

She said public assembly is a right that predates the founding of the country.

“No government has the right to limit freedoms that we have collectively established through centuries of showing up,” she said.

Another resident, Yoshi, called any such restrictions unconstitutional.

“These proposals are undemocratic and unconstitutional and should therefore be scrapped,” Yoshi said.

Varsha, another Princeton University doctoral student, said even community gatherings can serve as acts of expression.

“Events that are created to celebrate our diverse cultures and our communities are protests in and of themselves,” she said.

“When you suggest issuing fees for these types of gatherings, you’re allowing the further silencing of gatherings of already marginalized individuals,” she added. “It’s not just inequitable, but as I see it, it’s a moral wrong.”

Sacks said no ordinance currently exists and that Princeton would create one that would be a model for the state.

“To the question about an ordinance, there is no ordinance. There was a discussion,” she said.

At the March work session, officials said they wanted to expedite the ordinance and streamline procedures currently governed under two separate sections of the municipal code: one covering parades and another covering public assemblies.