últimas notícias

McKesson’s case stemmed from a protest of the killing of Alton Sterling, a Black man, by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in July 2016. The protest took place on a highway in front of the police headquarters in the city.

One officer, who is unnamed in the lawsuit, was hit by a piece of concrete or rock allegedly thrown by a protester and injured while police sought to clear the highway. While the person who threw the object wasn’t identified, the officer sued McKesson on the theory that his alleged organization of the protest made him liable for damages.

A federal district court rejected the officer’s claim but a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision and allowed it to proceed on the basis that “a violent confrontation with a police officer was a foreseeable effect of negligently directing a protest” onto the road.

The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court ruling but left open the possibility that the police officer could ultimately win the case.

Because of the case’s “novel issues of state law,” the justices wrote that the federal appeals court should have first consulted with the Louisiana Supreme Court.

“The Louisiana Supreme Court, to be sure, may announce the same duty as the Fifth Circuit,” the justices wrote. But, the justices added, the 5th Circuit should not have “ventured into so uncertain an area” of law that was “laden with value judgments and fraught with implications for First Amendment rights” without first obtaining guidance on Louisiana law from the Louisiana Supreme Court.

McKesson said in a statement provided by his attorneys that the decision “recognizes that holding me liable for organizing a protest because an unidentifiable person threw a rock raises First Amendment concerns.”

“I’m gratified that the Supreme Court vacated the ruling below, but amazingly, the fight is not over,” he said.

Donna Grodner, an attorney for the officer, said the Supreme Court’s decision signified that the 5th Circuit “got it right” and suggested the ruling was a loss on only technical grounds.

Vera Eidelman, an attorney at the ACLU representing McKesson, said, “We are gratified the Supreme Court has recognized there are important First Amendment issues at stake and has asked the state courts to review whether their law even permits such a suit.”

“We look forward to a ruling reaffirming that the fundamental right to protest cannot be attacked in this way,” Eidelman said.

The case is DeRay McKesson v. John Doe, No. 19-1108.