Simmons). In rejecting A.M,’s expressive-association claim, the Court refuses to “accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968), In an attempt to limit the “apparently limitless variety” of conduct that is actionable under the First Amendment, courts regularly reject frivolous expressive-association claims. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct. 1673. See Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060, 1073 (7th Cir.2013) (“[T]he First Amendment does not protect coming together at a local bar to smoke.”); Cabrol v. Town of Youngsville, 106 F.3d 101, 109 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Swank v. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247, 1251 (7th
recognizing that the first amendment protects the expressive activities associated with the voterregistration process holding that raising chickens is not an expressive act for the purposes of the first amendment holding that participating in community service is not expressive conduct holding that the video games at issue are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment holding that students action wearing black armbands was expressive conduct entitled to first amendment protection