On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review a case with significant ramifications for protest rights in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. The Court’s denial of certiorari allows the anti-First Amendment decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, known as one of the most conservative circuits in the nation, to go into effect.
“The courts refusal to take up the first amendment protest case and we are seeing bedrock civil rights being stripped away and judicial relief being made impossible to obtain,” Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law’s Cyberlaw Clinic, said on social media. “It’s a dark day for the judiciary which has become wholly illegitimate.”
The case, Doe v. McKesson, was filed by a police officer who was injured during a protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, sparked by the police killing of Alton Sterling in 2016. The protester who threw the hard object at the officer was never identified. Instead, the officer filed a lawsuit targeting DeRay McKesson, a prominent Black Lives Matter activist, the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, and the Black Lives Matter movement in its entirety. The lawsuit alleged that McKesson and the other defendants should be held civilly liable for inciting “violence and property loss.”
“[I]n a legal complaint that is riddled with typos, Doe’s lawyers claim that McKesson should be liable for ‘injuries and compensable damages . . . greater than $75,000.00’ because of the alleged actions of an unknown person who, in case this fact is not yet clear, is not DeRay McKesson,” Ian Millhiser wrote in ThinkProgress in 2019.
Brian Jackson, the chief judge of Louisiana Middle District Court, said in his 2017 opinion on McKesson’s motion to dismiss that the officer failed to “state a plausible claim for relief against an individual or entity that both has the capacity to be sued and falls within the precisely tailored category of persons that may be held liable for his injuries, which he allegedly suffered during activity that was otherwise constitutionally protected.”
Jackson pointed out that not only are social movements immune to lawsuits, but that the officer failed to demonstrate that McKesson overstepped the boundaries of First Amendment-protected speech, which is understood to safeguard political protests.
However, in 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision, allowing the officer’s negligence claim against McKesson to proceed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff had “plausibly alleged that McKesson…knew or should have known that the police would be forced to respond to the demonstration, that the protest would turn violent, and that someone might be injured as a result.”
“[T]he Doe opinion offers a road map to police officers — or, really, to anyone injured by a single participant in a political movement they disagree with — to shut down those movements with litigation,” Millhiser explained in ThinkProgress.
McKesson’s defense that the First Amendment “forbids a State from imposing liability in these circumstances,” was rejected, greatly limiting First Amendment protection and imperiling the right to protest in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.
“Such an exotic theory would have enfeebled America’s street-blocking civil rights movement, imposing ruinous financial liability against citizens for exercising core First Amendment freedoms,” Judge Don Willett wrote in his dissent. “Holding McKesson responsible for the violent acts of others because he ‘negligently’ led a protest that carried the risk of potential violence is impossible to square with Supreme Court precedent holding that only tortious activity meant to incite imminent violence, and likely to do so, forfeits constitutional protection against liability for violent acts committed by others.”
The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to not grant certiorari in this case sends it back to the lower courts to proceed on the merits. While McKesson may be found not liable by a jury, advocates believe that the Court’s refusal to take the case may “have a chilling effect on people hoping to organize and demand racial justice.”
“The goal of lawsuits like these is to prevent people from showing up at a protest out of the fear that they might be held responsible if anything happens,” McKesson said in a statement. “But people don’t need to be afraid to show up. The Constitution still protects our right to protest.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.