![]() ![]() The 5th Circuit’s ruling came after the Louisiana high court held that state tort law allows protest organizers to be held responsible for the actions of other demonstrators. Mckesson then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the justices vacated the 5th Circuit’s ruling in 2020, saying the Louisiana high court needed to weigh in because of the “novelty of the claim at issue” in the case. It was dismissed by a federal district court in 2017, before the 5th Circuit revived some claims two years later. The police officer’s unusual complaint has bounced up and down the court system for several years now. ![]() The Fifth Circuit’s ruling simply approved a new avenue - the notion of "negligent protest" - to sue protest leaders, even though that theory of liability is "incompatible with the First Amendment and is foreclosed - squarely - by Supreme Court precedent," as Willett wrote. Indeed, the "majority opinion cites none," Willett wrote in dissent. That, in a nutshell, is exactly why you hardly ever hear about lawsuits seeking to hold advocacy groups and protest leaders responsible for the actions of unruly or even violent attendees. Importantly, the Claiborne decision involved a boycott organizer who used highly charged and inflammatory rhetoric, even threatening to break the necks of boycott breakers. Claiborne holds that protest leaders are constitutionally protected from liability for unlawful acts by other demonstrators as a general matter, so long as they don’t specifically direct or incite imminent violence. And a 40-year-old precedent from the U.S. There is no dispute that Mckesson did not encourage or call for violence and did not act in concert with the person who threw the object. The plaintiff officer during the demonstration was struck by a rock or a similar object thrown by an unidentified protester, according to the 5th Circuit ruling. The July 2016 demonstration took place outside the Baton Rouge Police Department, in the aftermath of the killing of Alton Sterling, a Black man who was shot to death in the city during an encounter with police. Supreme Court justice described as the “threat of destruction by lawsuit” of our fragile rights of political association.Ī spokesperson for the Fifth Circuit told me the judges are unable to comment on the ruling, noting that it might soon be up for an en banc appeal before all the judges of the circuit and may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.Īttorneys representing Mckesson and the unnamed officer didn’t respond to my requests for comment. And it exposes advocacy groups and organizers to what one former U.S. The appeals court, to my mind, ignores the central role of civil disobedience - demonstrations that are peaceful, and sometimes unlawful - in securing our most fundamental American rights. Constitution, as dissenting judge Don Willett pointed out. The court’s ruling overlooked the fundamental legal principle that while certain categories of speech and action may be impermissible under state law, they are nonetheless protected by the U.S. The court held that it’s plausible that Mckesson is liable for the officer’s injuries because they were a foreseeable consequence of his negligent planning: Mckesson planned to block a public highway - a crime in Louisiana - which made it likely that a violent confrontation with police would ensue, according to the 5th Circuit. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 16 allowed an officer who filed anonymously to proceed in his suit alleging negligence against Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson. (Reuters) - A federal appeals court in Louisiana decided last week that a cop can sue a protest organizer for injuries caused by another person during a demonstration, ratifying a novel legal theory that threatens to further suppress protests and First Amendment rights more broadly. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |