Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. at 648, 120 S.Ct. 2446. To determine whether a group is protected by the First Amendment’s expressive associational right, we must' determine whether, the group engages in ‘expressive association.’ ■ The First Amendment’s protection of éxpressive association is not reserved for advocacy groups. But to come within its ambit, a group must engage in some form of expression, whether it be public or private. Because A.M. does not allege that the Individual DOH Defendants restricted her ability to associate for an expressive purpose — like voting, protesting, or otherwise organizing for political, educational, economic,' civic, or religious functions — she has failed to state a plausible claim. Cf. Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 181, 92 S.Ct. 2338, 33 L.Ed.2d 266 (1972) (<HOLDING>); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S.
holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political recognizing women as a distinct group holding that attempted conscription by a guatemalan guerrilla group did not constitute persecution on account of a political opinion where petitioner failed to show that the group was motivated by his political opinion holding that refusal to join guerrilla group is itself not affirmative expression of political opinion recognizing a right to organize campus political group