In McCutcheonv. FEC,Justice Breyer referredto thefreedomofspeech,notonlyasanindividuals rightto
engage in political speech,butalsothe publicsinterestinpreservingademocratic orderinwhich collectivespeech matters. This notion of a collective First Amendment was emphatically rejected by the majority opinion that explained that the First Amendment safeguards an individuals right to participate in the public debate through political expression and political association. Chief Justice Roberts retorted, there are compelling reasons not to definetheboundariesoftheFirstAmendmentbyreferencetosuchageneralizedconceptionofthepublicgood. The conflict between individual liberty and collective welfare is not new. But, the McCutcheon opinions signal a shifting trendinprogressiveandconservative thought on theFirstAmendment,andindividual libertymore generally. Three important examples illustrate this divide. First, the speech rights of corporations who engage in advocacy once thought the role ofindividuals. Second, thereligiousliberty ofcorporationsthatexercise faith,once thoughtonly thedogmaofbelievers.Third,the freedom ofassociationofgroups,who use theirassemblyto thwart, ratherthanadvanceperceivedprogressivegoals. Historically, liberals tended to favor broad conceptions of individual rights, with respect to protecting unconventional and unpopularspeech, minorityreligiousgroups, andthe rightto privateassociation. Conservatives, in contrast,oftenopposedsuch rights tothe extenttheyimpeded thepreservationof traditionalsocialnorms. Butin recent years there has been a reversal, as the right has coopted the mantle of individual liberty against claims of governmental intrusionintotheirtimehonored institutions.But forthe left,arobustfreedomofspeech,religion,and associationno longer servingthe causesofsocialjusticecannowmoreeasilybesubordinated tothe generalized conceptionofthepublicgood. First, with respect to free speech, the progressive preferenceforcollective libertyisevidentin theACLUs decision not to file a brief in McCutcheon, reflecting a divide among its members. As Floyd Abrams opined, the dissent offers a very troubling vision of free expression and is deeply disquieting. With respect to speech, modernday liberalism seems to be drifting away from protecting individual freedom, and more towards constitutionallyguaranteeingequality.Conservativesseizeonexpandedspeechrightstorepelthiscreepingcontrol. Second, with respect to free exercise, we have witnesses a bold transformation of the Religious Freedom RestorationAct(RFRA).IntroducedinCongress by SenatorsKennedy andRep.Schumer,andsignedintolawby President Clinton in 1993, RFRA was designed as a legislative override of Justice Scalias unpopular decision in Employment Division v. Smith. The law was designed as a shield to protect religious minorities, such as Native Americans who use sacramental peyote, from laws that infringe on their exercise. Fastforward two decades, and RFRA is now wielded asasword toenforcethe religiousidentitiesof corporations,that cannot beburdened by the Affordable Care Acts contraceptives mandate. In her dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Justice Ginsburg highlighted thedivide,focusingonhow theCourtsaccommodation ofthe religiouslibertiesofHobbyLobbywould have an impact on thousandsof women whodonotsharethecorporationowners religiousfaith.ForGinsburg, the collective needs of society for covered contraception easily trumps religious liberty. The majority, which grudginglyconcededthatcoveringcontraceptionwasacompellinginterest,viewedthecalculusexactlybackwards. Third, concerning thefreedomof association,the importanceofprivateassemblyhasnow inmany contexts given way to compulsion for groups not advancing the goals of social justice. During the Civil Rights Era, the membership lists of the NAACP, and the right toprivatelyassociatewere heldsacrosanct. Buttoday,priorities are reversed.Progressives seektounmaskthosewhosignedpetitionsopposingsamesexmarriage, subpoenapastorswho deliveredsermonsopposingLGBTlaws, andworkto compel religiousgroupsto admitmembersantitheticaltotheir beliefs.Inresponse,conservativenowcloakthemselvesbehindthoseWarrenCourtfreeassociationcases. Collective Liberty chronicles the juxtaposition of positions among liberals and conservatives between collective,andindividual views ofrights,andexplainswhatthis meansfor thedevelopmentof theFirstAmendment ontheRobertsCourt,astherightsoftheindividualcontinuetoclashwiththerightsofthecollective.