On a recent night, my block in Bergenfield rang out with air horns—and hate. A largely masked throng came to “protest” a small Israel-related informational event in a private home on a quiet residential street, populated by many families with young children. They gathered around the time kids are put to bed—and stayed long into the night—to shout genocidal slogans, hold up a picture of Hitler, and try to intimidate the neighborhood.

In response, and with little advance notice, the community rallied to place itself between the hate-spewing crowd and the home of our fellow synagogue member and friend. The group that gathered in support, holding intertwined American and Israeli flags, far outnumbered the protesters.

While the reaction was powerful, it should never have come to this. The area in front of a private home is not an appropriate location for a large demonstration. Neighbors should not be forced to endure street closures, barricades, shouting and amplified sound late into the night.

Unfortunately, Township officials took the position that participants must be permitted to target a private home, scream and blast air horns without a permit or any limitations. And they shunted responsibility to the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office and the Township attorney, with a Bergenfield town council member telling the press: “After speaking to both the prosecutor’s office and our attorneys, they advised us that we could not stop the protest. We also don’t have any ordinances in our town that could have stopped such a protest.”

It is important that the community understands that this is wrong on all counts.

Under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, government officials are permitted to impose reasonable “time, place, or manner regulations” on First Amendment-protected activities (see Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)). They have the authority to direct marchers to nearby school grounds or parks, restrict augmented sound and set time limits on events, for example, in order to address traffic safety and crowd control concerns, ensure residents’ access to their homes, and preserve the quiet enjoyment of residential neighborhoods.

Indeed, setting such limitations is the only way to protect everyone’s rights and freedoms. That is why every town and city in America requires those who seek to gather in large numbers to obtain a permit and, if officials deem it necessary, abide by content-neutral parameters on location, start- and end-times, and sound amplification.

Bergenfield is no different, the claims of Town officials notwithstanding. The Bergenfield Township Code (Sec. 273-19) specifically requires that organizers of any “public gathering” that will “cause the orderly flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic to be interfered with” apply to the Mayor and Town Council for a permit at least 30 days prior to the event and that one be issued only “provided the area to be used is specifically designated, the hours of prescribed use be established, the use itself is defined,” “provision [is] made … to clean the area of debris,” and “arrangements hav[e] been made for compliance with existing police and health regulations.” The Mayor and Council may also “require the applicant to post a bond of sufficient surety to satisfy the Mayor and Council that the terms of permission granted will be fulfilled.”

In other words, Bergenfield has ordinances that cover this exact situation. Those laws mandate that organizers seek and obtain a permit in advance of any traffic-disrupting public gathering. They make clear that the Mayor and Town Council have the authority to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions when issuing such a permit. And they direct that organizers must submit a plan for cleaning up after the event and for complying with applicable regulations and may be required to post a bond to cover these responsibilities.

Without all of the above, no permit should be issued. None of that happened in connection with the recent Bergenfield protest.

The Supreme Court, moreover, has instructed that there is no First Amendment right to target private homes in a residential neighborhood. In Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), the Court upheld a local law prohibiting picketing outside private residences in the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin. The Court explained that “we have repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own homes, and that the government may protect this freedom”; residential picketing “inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy”; and the “devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt[.]”

I and the larger Bergenfield and Teaneck community are well aware of the security challenges faced by local officials, especially since October 7, 2023, and we are grateful and appreciative for all that they—including all members of law enforcement—have done and continue to do to ensure the safety of our community.

However, there has been an escalation of menacing and disruptive behavior directed at Jewish residents, culminating in the recent targeting of a private home on a residential street. It is long past time that those whose jobs it is to represent and protect us use the legal tools available to them to address this situation. Permitting laws, and time, place and manner restrictions, are there to safeguard the rights and public safety of all.

This doesn’t mean that anti-Israel protests can or should be blocked; these protesters have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else. But they must go through the same legal process and be subject to the same reasonable requirements and limitations as anyone who wishes to organize a large gathering in our towns.

Our local elected and law enforcement officials need to stop hiding behind false legal and constitutional handcuffs and start standing up for their constituents.

Akiva Shapiro, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, is a constitutional litigator and Bergenfield resident.