Final answer:
The Supreme Court generally upholds private property rights when in conflict with the right of assembly, however, individual states may offer broader protections for the right of assembly on private property. State judges typically must follow the federal Constitution unless their state constitutions provide more protection for individual rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
When private property rights and the right of assembly come into conflict, the Supreme Court has generally upheld private property rights over the right of assembly. This is because the right to assemble is granted protection under the First Amendment, but it can be limited, especially when it conflicts with other rights or poses a threat to public safety and order, as seen in cases like Feiner v. New York. However, states like California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington have enacted laws that allow for free speech rights on private property, often referred to as public accommodation laws, reflecting their state constitutions which provide greater protection to the right of assembly in certain private property contexts than the federal constitution.
When state constitutional law and U.S. Supreme Court rulings differ, state judges must generally follow the federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land, unless the state constitution provides more protection to the individuals, in which case, the state constitution can be applied. This demonstrates how state constitutions can directly impact the rights and liberties of citizens.
State constitutions play a significant role in protecting civil liberties beyond the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. In some instances, they offer broader interpretations of rights which can include the right to assemble, reflecting the dynamic nature of civil liberties and the ongoing debate between conflicting rights and security concerns.