An anti-Black Lives Matter suit matters to activists

Mckesson, in an effort to clear the road.

The wounded officer, identified in court documents as John Doe, suffered injuries to his teeth, jaw and brain after a demonstrator threw a rock and hit the officer in the head, court documents state.

The rock-thrower was never identified. Instead, the officer sued Mckesson, who had become a recognizable face in the Black Lives Matter movement.

Mckesson, according to the lawsuit, knew there was a chance someone in the crowd could become violent at the demonstration.

Judge Grady Jolly, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, wrote in the court’s decision allowing the case to proceed to a trial that “Mckesson is liable in negligence for organizing and leading the Baton Rouge demonstration to illegally occupy a highway and that the lower court had “erred in dismissing the suit on First Amendment grounds.”

The federal judge who originally had dismissed the case cited the landmark 1982 Supreme Court decision NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., which created a precedent for blocking lawsuits against protesters because, the Supreme Court ruled, lawsuits could be wielded by the government as a weapon against protesters that would effectively suppress free-speech rights.

“It could lead to an organizer determining that, on balance, it’s just not worth it, that it’s too burdensome and too risky for them to hold a public protest,” said Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William and Mary Law School. “I think that is the real danger.”

The right to protest is among the liberties enshrined in the First Amendment. Violence at protests, however, is not a protected form of speech — and protesters can, and have, been criminally charged for violent acts.

But for decades, courts have ruled against attempts to sue protest organizers for the acts of others.

In this instance, the Fifth Circuit appellate court ruled, Mckesson could be held to account because he had led people onto a state highway, breaking the law and opening up the possibility of violence.

The ACLU’s argument hinges on the fear that until the Supreme Court intervenes, the appellate court’s decision could be cited in future decisions. It will be weeks before the Supreme Court decides whether to hear Mckesson’s case.

Experts said government agencies and elected officials in recent years have tried to enact barriers to protesting, hoping to combat demonstrations the country.

The National Park Service last year floated a proposal that would have and required organizers to repay the federal government for security costs — an idea the agency eventually withdrew. Earlier this year, Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., announced he was crafting legislation to hold protesters arrested during unpermitted demonstrations liable “for police overtime and other fees related to the action.” At least 18 state legislatures have considered similar bills.

The precedent established by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case, scholars said, could be used as another tactic to stymie protests. across