Supreme Court Rejects Appeal from Black Lives Matter Leader Held Liable for Violent Attack on Police Officer

Baton Rouge, Louisiana – The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a Black Lives Matter organizer held responsible for a violent incident involving a police officer during a protest he led. The case involved civil rights activist Deray Mckesson, who was sued by an unnamed Baton Rouge police officer identified as “John Doe” for injuries sustained during the 2016 protest.

Doe alleged that during the protest, an unidentified individual threw an object at him, causing injuries that included the loss of teeth and a brain injury. The officer’s lawsuit against Mckesson was based on the belief that Mckesson should have foreseen the potential for violence during the protest.

Legal representatives for the officer argued that previous incidents involving out-of-state Black Lives Matter protesters had resulted in violence, and therefore, Mckesson should have expected a similar outcome in Baton Rouge. The case had undergone multiple rounds in lower courts, with the Fifth Circuit ruling that Mckesson could be held liable for creating dangerous conditions and inciting violence during the protest.

On the other hand, lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing Mckesson contended that the claims against him violated his First Amendment rights. They argued that the lower court’s decision contradicted established Supreme Court precedent and posed a threat to protected First Amendment activities nationwide.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up Mckesson’s case was accompanied by a statement from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who stressed that the denial of the case did not reflect any judgment on the merits of Mckesson’s claims. She referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling that could influence how lower courts handle similar cases involving allegations of incitement to violence.

As the legal battle continues, the implications of this case for free speech and the right to protest remain significant. The decision not to review the case has left unresolved questions about accountability and the boundaries of protected speech during public demonstrations.