Hey,
do
you
plan
on
protesting
some
general
injustice
and
happen
to
live
in
Texas,
Louisiana
or
Mississippi?
Unless
you
have
some
serious
insurance,
I’d
heavily
encourage
you
to
give
it
a
second
thought
—
the
shield
that
is
the
First
Amendment
just
got
a
major
dent
in
it.
Reuters
has
coverage:
The
U.S.
Supreme
Court
on
Monday
allowed
a
Black
Lives
Matter
activist
to
be
sued
by
a
Louisiana
police
officer
injured
during
a
protest,
opens
new
tab
in
2016
in
a
case
that
could
make
it
riskier
to
engage
in
public
demonstrations,
a
hallmark
of
American
democracy.In
declining
to
hear
DeRay
Mckesson’s
appeal,
the
justices
left
in
place
a
lower
court’s
decision
reviving
a
lawsuit
by
the
Baton
Rouge
police
officer,
John
Ford,
who
accused
him
of
negligence
after
being
struck
by
a
rock
during
a
protest
sparked
by
the
fatal
police
shooting
of
a
Black
man,
Alton
Sterling.
Just
in
case
you
thought
the
introduction
was
a
little
over
the
top,
I’d
like
to
point
you
to
SCOTUSBlog’s
brilliant
and
concise
assessment
of
the
case’s
issue:
[Does]
the
First
Amendment
and
this
court’s
decision
in
NAACP
v.
Claiborne
Hardware
Co.
foreclose
a
state
law
negligence
action
making
a
leader
of
a
protest
demonstration
personally
liable
in
damages
for
injuries
inflicted
by
an
unidentified
person’s
violent
act,
when
it
is
undisputed
that
the
leader
neither
authorized,
directed,
nor
ratified
the
perpetrator’s
act,
nor
engaged
in
or
intended
violence
of
any
kind.
Now,
you
may
not
remember
the
Con
Law
module
where
your
professor
lamented
about
how
the
freedom
of
speech
and
the
right
to
assemble
inevitably
get
superseded
by
vicarious
liability
suits.
That’s
because
it
just
wasn’t
how
things
worked.
Now,
not
so
much
—
and
the
more
you
think
through
the
5th
Circuit’s
reasoning,
the
more
absurd
it
becomes.
Vox
shared
what
the
dissent
had
to
say
and
it’s
hard
to
see
the
hole
in
their
reasoning:
Fifth
Circuit
Judge
Don
Willett,
who
dissented
from
his
court’s
Mckesson
decision,
warned
in
one
of
his
dissents,
his
court’s
decision
would
make
protest
organizers
liable
for
“the
unlawful
acts
of
counter-protesters
and
agitators.”
So,
under
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
rule,
a
Ku
Klux
Klansman
could
sabotage
the
Black
Lives
Matter
movement
simply
by
showing
up
at
its
protests
and
throwing
stones.
A
restriction
on
free
speech
this
great
is
bound
to
return
to
the
Supreme
Court.
A
Republican
majority
might
not
care
when
the
person
facing
financial
ruin
is
some
Black
guy
in
a
blue
puffer
vest,
but
let’s
be
serious
guys:
the
states
are
Texas,
Louisiana
and
Mississippi.
It
is
only
a
matter
of
time
before
a
Klan
rally
turns
violent
and
a
hooded
figure
(who
may
or
may
not
be
a
cop)
gets
hit
with
some
serious
civil
liability.
And
when
that
happens,
you
can
be
sure
that
Thomas
or
Alito
will
manage
to
see
beyond
the
facts
and
strike
down
the
5th
Circuit’s
decision
as
the
free
speech
chilling
affront
to
liberty
that
it
is.
But
today
is
not
that
day.
US
Supreme
Court
Rejects
Black
Lives
Matter
Activist’s
Appeal
Over
Protest
Incident
[Reuters]
The
Supreme
Court
Effectively
Abolishes
The
Right
To
Mass
Protest
In
Three
US
States
[Vox]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.