In a Major Win for our Right to Protest, Federal Court Rules in Favor of Prominent Civil Rights Activist
The decision in Doe v. Mckesson affirms that the First Amendment protects protest leaders and organizers from being held liable for other people’s actions that they did not direct or intend
WASHINGTON — In a crucial win for the First Amendment right to protest, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ruled in favor of DeRay Mckesson, a prominent civil rights activist and Black Lives Matter movement organizer. The court held that a protest leader cannot be held legally responsible for injuries inflicted by another person’s violent act at the protest, when it is undisputed that the leader didn’t intend for that violence to occur. Though the Fifth Circuit had appeared to accept that theory in an earlier decision in this case, the district court held that, in light of more recent Supreme Court caselaw, negligence can never suffice to hold a person exercising their First Amendment freedoms at a protest liable; intent is required.
“The goal of this lawsuit was to prevent people from showing up at a protest out of the fear that they might be held responsible if anything happens, which makes this decision a win not only for me, but for all protest leaders and organizers across the country who are going to continue to show up and speak out. It’s heartening to know that the Constitution still protects our right to protest,” said Mckesson. “This has been a grueling eight-year process, and now that it is behind me, I can continue to channel all of my energy into the day-to-day work of envisioning a world beyond policing.”
The ruling comes after the Supreme Court declined to hear Doe v. Mckesson in April 2024, sending it back to the district court. Despite the Court’s denial of the cert petition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a statement emphasizing the Court’s 2023 decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which held that negligence can never be the proper standard when it comes to political speech and that intent is necessary for incitement, should govern “any future proceedings in this case.” The district court agreed.
“The Supreme Court has long recognized that peaceful protesters cannot be held liable for the unintended, unlawful actions of others, and we’re delighted to see that the district court came to the same conclusion,” said David Cole, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The district court additionally found that, even if the “negligent protest leader” theory was constitutional, the officer plaintiff in this case failed to prove the necessary facts. The opinion makes clear that simply alleging “negligent protest” on the part of a supposed leader does not suffice to win a case.
The person who brought the lawsuit had sought damages from Mckesson for injuries the officer sustained at a protest by an unknown third party in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 9, 2016. The protest was held to celebrate the life of Alton Sterling — a Black resident who was shot and killed by two on-duty police officers — and demand accountability and transformative change.
“Cases like this are used as a scare tactic, to stop communities from organizing with a fear of being held accountable for any and all actions that take place,” said Billy Gibbens, attorney with Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin. “We are thrilled that this ruling protected the rights of DeRay Mckesson, and all organizers and protest leaders.”
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.
“This win is not just important here in Louisiana, but across the nation,” said David Goldberg, attorney with Donahue & Goldberg. “It ensures the fundamental right to protest that this country was built upon, stands strong.”
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.