Baton Rouge, Louisiana – The Supreme Court declined an appeal on Monday from a Black Lives Matter organizer held responsible for a violent incident at a protest he led. The case involved civil rights activist Deray Mckesson, who was sued by an unnamed Baton Rouge police officer for injuries sustained during a 2016 protest. The officer claimed Mckesson should have known the protest could turn violent, leading to his injuries.
The lawsuit has gone through multiple court rounds, with the Fifth Circuit ruling in June that the case can proceed. The court found that Mckesson had created dangerous conditions and incited violence during the protest. However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the claims against Mckesson violated his First Amendment rights.
In a separate opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicated that the recent Counterman v. Colorado decision, making it harder to convict someone of making a violent threat, could impact Mckesson’s case in lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case does not express a view on the merits of Mckesson’s claim.
The officer’s lawyers argued that the protest, organized by Mckesson, followed a pattern of out-of-state protesters causing disruptions. They claimed the protest led to injuries and property damages, suggesting that Mckesson should have anticipated the violence that occurred.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson’s appeal leaves unresolved questions about the extent of organizer liability in protest-related incidents. The case highlights the complex legal issues surrounding free speech, protest organization, and the potential consequences of civil unrest. The ACLU’s defense of Mckesson underscores the ongoing debates over balancing First Amendment rights with public safety concerns.
In refraining from taking up the case, the Supreme Court leaves room for continued debate and legal interpretation on the responsibilities and rights of protest organizers in high-tension events. The decision sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances and raises important questions about the intersection of free speech, public safety, and legal accountability in protest activities.