ACLU Statement on Supreme Court Decision to Decline to Hear Case on Protestors’ Rights
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today declined to hear a case that would have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest leaders and organizers from being held liable for any actions of a third party that they did not specifically direct, authorize, ratify, or intend. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a statement explaining that, though the court declined to hear the case, its decision expresses no view on the merits of the First Amendment arguments.
The case, Mckesson v Doe, was brought against DeRay Mckesson, a prominent civil rights and social justice activist, by a police officer claiming that Mckesson should be liable for personal injuries he suffered after an unknown individual, not Mr. Mckesson, threw an object at him during a political protest in the aftermath of the 2016 killing of Alton Sterling by police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Previously, the Fifth Circuit ruled, over powerful dissenting opinions, in favor of the officer, accepting a theory under which all protest leaders can find themselves on the hook for an unlawful act they did not intend, committed by an unidentified person they neither knew nor controlled, all because they were at the same protest.
Mckesson is represented by David Goldberg, counsel of record on Mckesson’s legal team and attorney with Donahue, Goldberg & Herzog; the American Civil Liberties Union; the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana; and Billy Gibbens and Ian Atkinson, trial counsel and attorneys with Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin, LLC.
“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,” said Mckesson, a prominent civil rights and social justice activist. “But people don't need to be afraid to show up. The Constitution still protects our right to protest.”
In her statement, Sotomayor noted that the lower courts are expected to apply the precedent set in Counterman v. Colorado, a 2023 Supreme Court case, which held that the First Amendment prohibits holding anyone liable for mere negligence when it comes to speech in any circumstance. And, when it comes to incitement–whether in a civil or a criminal case–intent is the governing standard.
“It is disappointing that the Court did not take the opportunity to bring this case to an end,” said David Goldberg, Mckesson’s counsel of record. “But I am confident that the Court eventually will consider and repudiate this dangerous rule of law.”
In seeking Supreme Court review, the ACLU and Goldberg argued that, under the First Amendment, it is impermissible to hold Mckesson liable for damages, absent any evidence that he directed, authorized, ratified or encouraged any act of violence at the protest, based solely on the possibility that violence by someone at the protest was “foreseeable.” Under the Fifth Circuit’s dangerous theory of liability, the ACLU and Goldberg argued that protest leaders will face greater responsibility than others who “create the conditions” for illegal conduct by unrelated third parties. The case will now proceed in the trial court, with the benefit of Sotomayor’s statement and the governing rule of Counterman.
“After today’s news, people should not be afraid that they’ll face a ruinous lawsuit if they exercise their rights to protest. The Court just last year affirmed that negligence can never be the governing standard when it comes to speech, and Justice Sotomayor suggests it simply didn’t need to say so again here,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “That should be the takeaway for the lower courts in this case and in protest cases going forward.”
The ACLU emphasizes that the Court’s decision to deny discretionary review in this case does not amount to a holding that the Fifth Circuit’s rule is correct, even in the Fifth Circuit, and that it will fight to ensure–in this case and others–that the Fifth Circuit’s clearly erroneous decision does not govern anywhere.
Free Speech
Mckesson v. Doe
Free Speech
Mckesson v. Doe
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.