If the CDC merely urged that all large gatherings be cancelled, that would probably result in the cancellation of 95% of them, with no constitutional implications.

Restrictions on that right are subject to "strict scrutiny", which is the highest standard of judicial review.

To satisfy it, the government has to show that it has a compelling state interest and that their solution is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

Curfews for public safety after natural disasters like fires and floods, or to prevent spread of disease, or in times of extreme civil unrest like riots have been found to meet the strict scrutiny standard.

Since a ban on large gatherings is less of an imposition on your freedom of assembly than a curfew, I'd expect that it would be allowed.

Legal eagle did a video on Youtube that came out yesterday that seemed to suggest that the government has leeway in cases of pandemics (sort of like in wartime) that it wouldn't have otherwise. It might technically be unconstitutional under some readings of it, but SCOTUS might rule that it's warranted.

It’s really unfortunate that the word “right” is used here because no “right” is absolute.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can falsely yell “active shooter” in a crowded theater.

Freedom to bear arms doesn’t mean you’re allowed to own nuclear weapon or a surface to air missile battery.

Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean you can go where you want, when you want.

Other needs and limits can preempt these “rights” so they’re not really right at all.

SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized quarantine as an exception.

Sure, a recommendation seems good too... anything rather than just burying our heads in the sand.

I believe the current legal interpretation of freedom of assembly in the US is that it only applies if your assembly is ‘to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’.

Not a lawyer, I think it would depend on the exact laws and rulings around martial law. Curfews are a thing, but I don’t know if they’re constitutional.

There's an awful lot of case law to date that allows for public health departments to violate constitutional rights to address a public health emergency. The legal right to quarantine is pretty much predicated on "for the good of society, your constitutional rights are out the window."

I hope I don't sound critical of this. I'm not. I'm in favor of empowering public health departments, with accountability and oversight and judicial review, to do what is needed to prevent massive tragedy. I'm just putting it bluntly: our case law on this topic is reasonably well-settled, and one-sided, as pertains to epidemics. (Now, as pertains to vaccinating...)

It can be regulated if it impinges upon my rights.

Aren’t some authorizations still needed to organize larger events? I think that’s the ban, no more concerts, sold out football matches, etc.