Judge warns revival of lawsuit against Black Lives Matter organizer ‘imperils’ First Amendment
A federal appeals court judge is warning that his colleague’s decision to revive a trial against a Black Lives Matter activist poses a threat to First Amendment rights.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge appeals panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that a police officer’s lawsuit against DeRay Mckesson merits a jury trial. Mckesson, who organized a demonstration during which the police officer was injured, was accused of negligence. The dissenting judge warned that the decision “jeopardizes the freedoms provided by the First Amendment,” while Mckesson called the lawsuit “ridiculous.”
The case revolves around a 2016 protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, following the death of Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man shot and killed by police outside a convenience store. Mckesson joined hundreds of others at the protest, during which police officer John Ford was injured by a “rock-like” object thrown by an unknown person. The lawsuit does not suggest Mckesson threw the object or even knew about it.
Mckesson is a Black Lives Matter activist who rose to prominence during the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after Michael Brown, an 18-year-old Black man, was shot and killed by a white police officer. A federal court had already ruled in Mckesson’s favor in what the American Civil Liberties Union described as a “crucial victory for the First Amendment right to protest.”
The majority opinion, by Justices Edith H. Jones, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and Andrew Oldham, appointed by Donald Trump, found that years of back-and-forth in the U.S. legal system were enough, and while it was not certain that Ford would win, he deserved to go to trial.
“It is time for Officer Ford to ask a jury to evaluate his claim that DeRay Mckesson’s negligence in leading a violent protest resulted in his injuries at the hands of the rioters.”
Dissenting, Judge Carolyn King – appointed by Jimmy Carter – argued that Mckessson was the wrong person to judge.
“Officer John Ford was tragically injured in the line of duty. Someone should be held accountable. But Officer Ford has failed to demonstrate that Mckesson is that someone,” she wrote.
She argued that by seeking to provide the officer with a legal avenue to sue for his injuries, the judges essentially made Mckesson liable.
“In doing so, it jeopardizes First Amendment freedoms.”
Mckesson said in a statement that the decision was disappointing not only for him, but also for “anyone who cherishes the right to protest.”
“The purpose of this trial was not only to silence me, but also to deter people from showing up to protests because they could be sued for someone else’s behavior,” he said.
Mckesson’s lawyers with the ACLU decried the decision and said they would continue to seek justice. A lawyer for Ford did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
