Supreme Court Rejects Appeals Court's Revival Of Anonymous Cop's Stupid Lawsuit Against BLM Activist

from the duty-to-not-be-a-litigious-dumbass-still-not-litigated-yet dept

Early last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has more than its fair share of inexplicable decisions) released an inexplicable decision. The appeal arose from a lower court's dismissal of an injured cop's lawsuit against multiple parties over injuries he sustained when a protester threw a chunk of concrete at him.

The pseudonymous cop sued a number of entities, including "Black Lives Matter," a Twitter hashtag, and activist DeRay Mckesson. His claims against the social movement and the social media sorting mechanic didn't survive. But the Fifth Circuit Court felt it was plausible -- under Louisiana state law -- that Mckesson was somehow responsible for the injuries sustained by the cop.

According to the court, Mckesson should have known that leading protesters onto a highway would "provoke" a "confrontation" with law enforcement. Being aware of this potential provocation was enough for the court to revive Officer John Doe's idiotic attempt to hold Mckesson personally responsible for an act of violence committed by another person.

That ridiculousness has now been undone by the Supreme Court. The nation's top court rolls back [PDF] the Fifth Circuit's inexplicable resurrection of the cop's misguided claims and sends it back down the judicial food chain. Allowing this decision to stand would do damage to the First Amendment and invite similarly misguided lawsuits from plaintiffs like this one -- people seeking to bleed the biggest litigation target, rather than the person who perpetrated the injurious act.

The Supreme Court says the Fifth Circuit was right to recognize the issue, but was less correct in its handling of it.

As the Fifth Circuit recognized at the outset, Louisiana law generally imposes no “‘duty to protect others from the criminal activities of third persons.’” But the panel majority held that a jury could plausibly find that Mckesson breached his “duty not to negligently precipitate the crime of a third party” because “a violent confrontation with a police officer was a foreseeable effect of negligently directing a protest” onto the highway. 945 F. 3d, at 827. The dissent would have demanded something more—a “special relationship” between Mckesson and Officer Doe—before recognizing such a duty under Louisiana law.

It goes back to the courts, but not the Fifth Circuit. This one is being shipped to the Louisiana state Supreme Court, which needs to clarify the law -- and the alleged duty supposedly owed by Mckesson.

The Louisiana Supreme Court, to be sure, may announce the same duty as the Fifth Circuit. But under the unusual circumstances we confront here, we conclude that the Fifth Circuit should not have ventured into so uncertain an area of tort law—one laden with value judgments and fraught with implications for First Amendment rights— without first seeking guidance on potentially controlling Louisiana law from the Louisiana Supreme Court.

This isn't a win for Mckesson yet. But it most likely will end up that way. Reading the law the way the Fifth Circuit seemed inclined to would turn First Amendment-protected expression -- like Mckesson's attendance and participation in a protest -- into an enabler of frivolous lawsuits that would introduce a chilling effect on protests and demonstrations. Allowing random people to be sued for actions perpetrated by violent outliers would dissuade a great number of people from exercising their First Amendment rights. Hopefully, the state Supreme Court will recognize the collateral damage allowing these claims to continue would produce.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 5th circuit, black lives matter, deray mckesson, free speech, louisiana, police, protests, supreme court


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 3 Nov 2020 @ 11:14am

    If that's how you want to play it...

    If they want to set the bar that low then I look forward to the plethora of lawsuits against heads of police departments when one of their officers crosses the line, organizers of Trump rallies or protests held by that cult or associated groups, and just so many more.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 3 Nov 2020 @ 11:18am

    Amazing…

    I find it Amazing that the 6-3 conservative majority SCOTUS did something not horrible! I guess sometimes flowers bloom in darkness…

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2020 @ 6:00pm

      Re: Amazing…

      Reading the law the way the Fifth Circuit seemed inclined to would turn First Amendment-protected expression -- like Mckesson's attendance and participation in a protest -- into an enabler of frivolous lawsuits that would introduce a chilling effect on protests and demonstrations.

      the 6-3 conservative majority SCOTUS did something not horrible!

      Conservative indeed. This is a model of "Judicial restraint": Instead of deciding that the law in question was unconstitutional on first amendment grounds, the Supreme Court dodged the bullet by telling the Louisiana Supreme Court to rule on that law ... on entirely different grounds.

      Reason.com articles mention the "professional rescuers' Doctrine". Worth a read.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2020 @ 11:48am

    According to the court, Mckesson should have known that leading protesters onto a highway would "provoke" a "confrontation" with law enforcement.

    And yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, we need some kind of judicial precedent that a cop needed to know that firing a gun into a crowd of children is bad:

    For instance, when a police officer shot a 10-year-old child while trying to shoot a nonthreatening family dog, the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because no earlier case held it was unconstitutional for a police officer to recklessly fire his gun into a group of children without justification.

    Funny how if you're a citizen, you're supposed to know better.

    But if you're in law enforcement, there needs to be some kind of precedent for using the functional equivalent of common sense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 3 Nov 2020 @ 11:59am

      Re:

      Insanely enough when it comes to cops and the courts the default assumption seems to be that police are both the dumbest people in existence and the most fragile, such that it would be completely unreasonable to expect them to have any intelligence or basic reasoning skills and unfair in the extreme to attempt to hold them accountable for their actions due to that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2020 @ 4:12am

    anonymous lawsuit?
    how does that work?
    is there discovery?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.