Protecting individual rights — including the right to disagree with others and the actions of the government — has been important to the United States since its founding. Following the ratification and adoption of the United States Constitution, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, as several members of the governing body were deeply concerned about protecting individual rights under this new system (National Archives).
The first of these was the protection of several freedoms in the first amendment: “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” (US Const. amend. I).
Despite the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, people in the United States are facing increasingly hostile responses when choosing to dissent, including the detention of student protesters at the University of Washington and Columbia University (Alonso) and the militarized response to residents protesting an ICE detention center in Los Angeles (Montoya-Galvez and Watson). This forceful reaction from people in power even impacts public officials, as seen when California Senator Alex Padilla was handcuffed while interrupting a press conference on immigration (Baragona).
Despite the harsh reactions from people and groups in power, dissent is an essential part of the process in government policies as well as in other sectors, such as scientific research, where novel inquiries serve as a form of dissent when they challenge existing findings. Because dissent is present and necessary to democracy on so many levels, I will first examine a biomedical example, then one at the local government level, and finally at the federal government level. Dissenting is in line with the United States’ self-determined, independent ideals. Limiting free speech restricts the potential for individual innovation and personal rights that contribute to this country’s strength, both in the scientific and legal fields.
Even the founding of the United States was a dissent from the political structures of England – it would be a disservice to the strength of our modern society to stifle the ability to disagree with current government policy.
First, at an individual level, dissenting from broader opinions in non-governmental fields has helped mediate technological progress with ethical concerns. CRISPR-Cas9 is a novel gene-editing technology that enables researchers to modify sequences of human DNA (Ayanoglu 110-111). This technology has the potential to improve individuals’ lives by treating previously incurable genetic diseases, such as sickle cell anemia and thalassemia, a genetic disorder that causes the production of irregular and ineffective red blood cells (Ahmend et al.).
However, this new technology also has the potential to lead to unethical experiments, causing concerns about animal welfare, potential side effects, and its use as a tool for modern eugenics (Ayanoglu 112-114). Continued funding enables scientists and bioethics experts to share their research, helping to foster conversations with others about how to ethically proceed with this breakthrough technology. Hearing from different, informed voices is crucial to the conversation around genetic modification, enabling researchers to maximize the beneficial aspects of this technology while avoiding unethical applications. Although this topic of dissent is not directly tied to law, it is essential that citizens learn about scientific developments and respond accordingly based on their diverse ethical views.
Dissent is essential to everyday life in the United States, and this is also evident in local and state governments. The freedom to dispute local measures can spur fundamental changes that improve the lives of constituents. For example, residents of Columbia County in Washington state attempted to close a rural library district to remove access to books for teenagers that include topics like race in the United States and LGBTQ+ individuals (Butterworth).
For Neighbors United for Progress, a bipartisan local political action group, this was unacceptable (Hansen). The chair, Elise Severe, challenged the petition to close the district on procedural grounds: a majority of library taxpayers were unable to vote on the measure (Hansen). This act of dissent allowed citizens to come together to protect their shared informational resources. Allowing citizens to organize and challenge measures is an integral part of the democratic process.
In response to this bipartisan dissent, Washington State passed Senate Bill 5824, which increased the requirements needed to shut down library districts (Hansen; Hunt et al. 1-4). Both Republican and Democratic legislators supported this bill, including state Senator Leonard Christian, who said, “I think we had a tea party a few hundred years ago about taxation without representation, and I think we’re in the same situation here” (Hansen).
Even the founding of the United States was a dissent from the political structures of England – it would be a disservice to the strength of our modern society to stifle the ability to disagree with current government policy. Dissenting when policies are unfair is an essential part of participating in democracy, regardless of one’s party affiliation. Constituent dissent at a local level helps keep elected representatives accountable for policies and fair representation.
Ongoing dissent is a necessary aspect of policy at the federal level as well. Freedom to dissent from federal policies can lead to nationwide changes. One recent example is the variety of responses to the Supreme Court’s role in changing access to abortion with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Prior to this 2022 decision, Roe v. Wade protected a woman’s right to abortion through the first trimester, a decision in line with other rulings that interpreted the Constitution as protecting vulnerable minorities (Ziegler, 89-90).
Roe v. Wade emerged at a time when mass dissent helped advance civil rights and protect marginalized groups. In 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Oyez). This overruled Roe v. Wade and upheld Mississippi’s near-total abortion ban after 15 weeks of gestational age (Oyez). For the pro-life movement, this success, following several court cases aimed at overturning Roe and years of dissent, was a significant milestone (Ziegler, 90).
However, though the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the pro-life movement has sent several states towards more extreme abortion laws, the pro-choice movement has also dissented by taking action at state and local levels to advocate for the right to abortion (Ziegler, 92). In addition to petitioning to change regulations, advances in medicine have added another option to the conversation.
All groups involved — pro-life advocates, pro-choice advocates, and medical professionals alike — are considering how to respond to mifepristone pills that can terminate early pregnancies (Baker, 503-505). The right to dissent has been crucial for both sides to find success in court and in local and state legislation, and also demonstrates that dissent must be constant in a dynamic setting such as the legal and political landscape.
Dissent is a crucial aspect of democracy — the option to challenge current policy is necessary at the federal level to work towards more fair and just policies. This is also true for local and state policies, where collective actions have a direct impact on their communities. Engaging with current policies and informing elected officials about their impact on your community is an integral part of maintaining a representative democracy. In the private sphere, it facilitates free speech and enables different stakeholders to engage in conversations about new developments, particularly scientific breakthroughs. In an increasingly polarized political environment, it is necessary to express individual views in order to be heard. The United States’ rugged individualism rests on the ability of citizens to work towards a more perfect union through dissent.
References:
Ahmed, Rehab, et al. “CRISPR/Cas9 System as a Promising Therapy in Thalassemia and Sickle Cell Disease: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.” Molecular Biotechnology, vol. ##, no. ##, December 2024, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-025-01368-x.
Alonso, Johanna. “A Year After the Encampments, More Arrests at Columbia and UW.” Inside Higher Ed, 09 May 2025. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2025/05/09.
Ayanoglu, Fatma Betul. “Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology.” Turkish Journal of Biology, vol. 44, no. 2, January 2020, pp. 110-114.
Baker, Carrie N. “History and Politics of Medication Abortion in the United States and the Rise of Telemedicine and Self-Managed Abortion.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law., vol. 48, no. 4, 2023, pp. 485–510, https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449941.
Baragona, Justin and Alex Woodward. “Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla handcuffed and forcibly removed from Kristi Noem’s immigration press conference.” The Independent, 13 June 2025. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/alex-padilla-immigration-press-conference-noem-b2769116.html
Butterworth, Meg. “Forget banning books — a rural WA county may close its library.” Cascade PBS, 21 August 2023. https://www.cascadepbs.org/news/2023/08/forget-banning-books-rural-wa-county-may-close-its-library/#:~:text=After%20a%20fight%20over%20LGBTQ%2B,only%20library%20in%20Columbia%20County. Accessed June 20, 2025.
Coverdale, J., Gordon, M.R., Beresin, E.V. et al. “Access to Abortion After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Advocacy and a Call to Action for the Profession of Psychiatry.” Acad Psychiatry, vol. 47, February 2023, pp. 1–6. https://doi-org.whitman.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s40596-022-01729-7
“Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.” Oyez, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392. Accessed 20 Jun. 2025.
Hansen, Scarlet. “WA bill would make it harder to shut down public libraries.” Cascade PBS, 21 29 February 2024. https://www.cascadepbs.org/news/briefs/2024/02/wa-bill-would-make-it-harder-shut-down-public-libraries/. Accessed June 20, 2025.
Hunt, Sam et al, State of Washington, Congress, Senate. Engrossed Senate Bill 5824. 4 March 2024. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5824.PL.pdf?q=20250620130319. 68th Legislature, 2024 Regular Session. Accessed 20 Jun. 2025.
Montoya-Galvez, Camilo and Elanor Watson. “What to know about the Los Angeles immigration protests over ICE operations.” CBS News, 12 June 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-los-angeles-immigration-protests-trump/.
National Archives. Constitution of the United States– A History. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/more-perfect-union. Accessed 4 July 2025.
United States Constitution. Amend. I. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ Accessed 4 Jul. 2025.
Ziegler, Mary. “Should Constitutional Rights Reflect Popular Opinion? Interpreting Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.” Modern American History 6.1 (2023): 88–92. Web.
Image Credit: Eugène Lami, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
