A federal appeals court has cleared the way for Baltimore activist DeRay McKesson to face a civil jury over a Baton Rouge protest that took place nearly eight years ago, reviving a lawsuit from a former police officer who says he was badly hurt on the job.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that "eight years of pretrial litigation are enough" and sent Officer John Ford's negligence claims back toward trial, according to WMAR‑2 News. In a 2-1 decision, the panel said there is evidence McKesson played a leadership role at the demonstration, and that disputed facts about his conduct should be sorted out by a jury, not judges behind closed chambers doors.
The Baton Rouge protest and the injured officer
The case traces back to a July 2016 protest in Baton Rouge after police shot and killed Alton Sterling. Ford says that while policing the demonstration, he was hit in the face by a rock-like object, an impact he alleges knocked out teeth, fractured his jaw, caused a concussion, and left him with ongoing vision problems. Those injuries, and the surrounding allegations, are detailed in the appellate record in the Fifth Circuit opinion.
A legal odyssey
Ford filed its lawsuit in federal court in 2016. A district judge initially tossed the case, ruling that McKesson's role in the protest was protected speech. From there, the file turned into a traveling exhibit, moving through appeals and trips to higher courts. In 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court answered certified questions and said that, on the facts alleged, a protest leader could owe a duty not to negligently precipitate a third party's crime, and that the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine did not automatically block Ford's claim, according to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.
Why civil-liberties groups worry
Civil-liberties advocates are warning that if negligence suits like this one go forward, protest organizing could start to look like a high-risk profession. The ACLU argues in its briefs that holding organizers liable for the unexpected acts of strangers would chill speech and deter demonstrations. McKesson's lawyers have taken the same basic position in court, contending that the First Amendment should block this kind of liability, a defense described on the website of Donahue, Goldberg & Herzog.
What's next
With the latest ruling, the case now heads back to the trial court, where a jury will be asked to decide whether McKesson's alleged leadership role made the turn to violence reasonably foreseeable and therefore legally actionable. McKesson's legal team is expected to continue pressing constitutional defenses at trial, while Ford's lawyers prepare to highlight evidence about leadership and foreseeability, according to WMAR‑2 News.
Legal stakes
Lawyers and scholars say the case sits at a tense crossroads between standard negligence rules and core First Amendment protections. The U.S. Supreme Court has already brushed up against this dispute in earlier stages, and, combined with its recent decisions shaping speech standards, the outcome here could ripple far beyond Louisiana, AP reports.
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}