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鈥檚 actions that they did not direct or intend
WASHINGTON 鈥� 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鈥檚 violent act at the protest, when it is undisputed that the leader didn鈥檛 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.
鈥淭he 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鈥檚 heartening to know that the Constitution still protects our right to protest,鈥� said Mckesson. 鈥淭his 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.鈥�
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鈥檚 denial of the cert petition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a statement emphasizing the Court鈥檚 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 鈥渁ny future proceedings in this case.鈥� The district court agreed.
鈥淭he Supreme Court has long recognized that peaceful protesters cannot be held liable for the unintended, unlawful actions of others, and we鈥檙e delighted to see that the district court came to the same conclusion,鈥� said David Cole, legal director of the 老澳门开奖结果.
The district court additionally found that, even if the 鈥渘egligent protest leader鈥� theory was constitutional, the officer plaintiff in this case failed to prove the necessary facts. The opinion makes clear that simply alleging 鈥渘egligent protest鈥� 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 鈥� a Black resident who was shot and killed by two on-duty police officers 鈥� and demand accountability and transformative change.
鈥淐ases 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,鈥� said Billy Gibbens, attorney with Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin. 鈥淲e are thrilled that this ruling protected the rights of DeRay Mckesson, and all organizers and protest leaders.鈥�
Mckesson is represented by David Goldberg, counsel of record on Mckesson鈥檚 legal team and attorney with Donahue, Goldberg & Herzog; the 老澳门开奖结果; the 老澳门开奖结果 of Louisiana; and Billy Gibbens and Ian Atkinson, trial counsel and attorneys with Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin, LLC.
鈥淭his win is not just important here in Louisiana, but across the nation,鈥� said David Goldberg, attorney with Donahue & Goldberg. 鈥淚t ensures the fundamental right to protest that this country was built upon, stands strong.鈥�
Free Speech
Mckesson v. Doe
Free Speech
Mckesson v. Doe
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, 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鈥檚 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 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he 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.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� 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 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 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鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� 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,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� 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 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 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鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.