The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of a prominent Black Lives Matter activist who organized a riot that led to a police officer being seriously injured in 2016.
Police officer "John Doe" suffered brain injury and lost teeth when an unidentified BLM rioter threw a "rock-like object" at him as unrest swept Baton Rouge, Louisiana, following the death of Alton Sterling in police custody.
Activist Deray McKesson, who organized the riot, argues he is shielded from liability by the First Amendment. But the injured officer says McKesson could have foreseen the violent consequences when he led activists to block a highway.
McKesson should have anticipated that his efforts would result in violence given the "pattern" of Black Lives Matter protests developing into violent confrontations with cops, John Doe's lawyers said.
"The pattern was set: out-of-state protesters representing BLM fly into a town, gather, block a highway, engage and entice police, loot, damage property, injure bystanders, injure police," they wrote.
"By July 9, 2016, when McKesson organized the Baton Rouge protest/riot—he had no reason to expect a different outcome—police will be injured."
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected McKesson's argument, finding he incited violence by "organiz[ing] and direct[ing] a protest… such that it was likely that a violent confrontation with the police would result."
The Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit against McKesson to move forward without any explanation.
Conservatives have long argued that the 2020 George Floyd riots led to few if any consequences for serious lawbreakers like the rioters who besieged a federal courthouse in Portland.
The Supreme Court's decision to let McKesson face liability is therefore a surprising setback for an activist movement that has been, in the eyes of many, permitted to engage in political violence in the name of free speech.
The far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) blasted the court's decision as a threat to "classic First-Amendment-protected activity nationwide."
In a separate matter implicating the right to protest, the Supreme Court appeared skeptical Tuesday of the Justice Department's sweeping prosecution of hundreds of January 6th participants who have been charged with "obstruction of an official proceeding."
The court's conservatives showed concern about the statute being stretched to squelch legitimate First Amendment activity.
