Mckesson v. Doe
Headline: Court sends a disputed 'negligent protest' ruling back to Louisiana, vacating the Fifth Circuit decision and asking the state supreme court to decide if a protest leader can be liable for a participant’s violent act.
Holding:
- Leaves undecided whether protest leaders can be sued for attendees’ violent acts.
- Encourages lower courts to seek state-court guidance before resolving constitutional questions.
- Postpones a national First Amendment ruling until state law is clarified.
Summary
Background
DeRay Mckesson organized a protest in Baton Rouge after a local police shooting. Protesters allegedly blocked the highway in front of police headquarters. During arrests to clear the road, an unidentified person threw a rock that struck Officer Doe, causing severe injuries, including lost teeth and brain trauma. Officer Doe sued Mckesson, claiming Mckesson negligently staged and directed the protest in a way that led to the assault. The District Court dismissed the negligence claim as barred by the First Amendment, while a divided Fifth Circuit panel reversed and allowed the claim to go forward.
Reasoning
The central question was whether holding a protest leader personally liable for a participant’s violent act would violate the First Amendment. The Court decided not to reach that constitutional question because Louisiana law on whether an organizer can owe a duty of care in these circumstances was unclear. The Court explained that federal courts may ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to clarify state law before deciding important constitutional issues. Given that uncertainty, the Court granted review, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Real world impact
The decision leaves unresolved whether protest organizers can be sued when attendees commit violence; that determination now awaits clarification of Louisiana law. Because the Court did not rule on the First Amendment question, no nationwide rule was created and the outcome could change after state-court guidance is received. Justice Barrett did not participate in the decision.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas stated he dissented from the Court’s order.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?