吃瓜大本营

On August 30, 2020, Torrey Henderson, Amara Ridge and Justin Thompson, exercised their First Amendment right to participate in a peaceful march along a historic public street in Gainesville, Texas, protesting a confederate monument on a courthouse lawn. The march was conducted and concluded peacefully and, prior to its commencement, Thompson addressed the crowd and reminded protest participants of 鈥渁 few rules, including . . . staying on the sidewalks.鈥� The protesters primarily did so, stepping into the street only as necessary to change directions or in response to a water hazard that narrowed their path. Nevertheless, police arrested the petitioners in this case three days later, and Henderson, Ridge, and Thompson were ultimately convicted under a Texas law that makes it a crime to 鈥渙bstruct鈥� a passageway.

But the records supporting the petitioners鈥� convictions contained no evidence at all that they themselves obstructed traffic or directed or intended that anyone else do so. Indeed, in affirming the petitioners鈥� convictions, the main 鈥渙bstruction鈥� the court of appeals pointed to involved young man on a bicycle who caused traffic to slow for at most a minute-and-a-half. The bicyclist was neither arrested nor charged himself, and the police department did not so much as identify him as part of the march. Notwithstanding the absence of any evidence that the petitioners themselves either intentionally obstructed a roadway or directed others to do so, two Texas appellate courts upheld their convictions for leading a march in the public streets.

On July 25, 2024, the ACLU and its Texas affiliate asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse petitioners鈥� convictions and affirm that the Constitution forbids states from holding protest organizers criminally liable for mere incidental presence in the street during the exercise of their First Amendment rights, or for the unintended actions of unidentified third-parties. The Supreme Court has recognized time and again the historical association between the exercise of First Amendment rights and public places such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, and has made clear that access to these traditional forums for public protest may not be denied overbroadly or absolutely. It has also established that, in the context of free speech activities, even civil liability may not be imposed on the leader of a group merely because some other members of the group acted unlawfully where the protest leader did not authorize or direct the unlawful activity.

Our petition argues that the lower courts flouted these precedents by upholding petitioners鈥� convictions on the sole basis that some members of their group incidentally and briefly stepping into the street during the course of their protest, even though there was no evidence that obstruction resulted from protest participants鈥� activity and no evidence that the petitioners intended or authorized law-breaking. If left standing, the decision below will empower states to hold protesters criminally liable for simply stepping foot into passageways during a lawful protest and for the independent actions of others that they did not intend or direct. This risk of arrest jeopardizes any meaningful ability for protest organizers to exercise their First Amendment right to assemble peacefully and protest in public space. The petition requests the Supreme Court to grant more breathing room to preserve this fundamental right.