In a recent development, the Supreme Court has allowed a lawsuit to move forward against Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson. The anonymous police officer who was injured during a 2016 protest has filed the lawsuit, claiming that Mckesson's leadership at the event makes him liable for the actions of an unidentified culprit.

The incident occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, shortly after the fatal shooting of Alton Sterling by the police. Mckesson organized a protest where demonstrators blocked a highway outside a local police station. As the police attempted to clear the roadway, the officer, identified as John Doe, was struck by a "rock-like object" and suffered brain trauma and other injuries.

Despite the fact that Mckesson did not throw the object and never authorized any violence, the officer argues that his leadership role at the protest makes him responsible for the actions of others. The officer's claim is based on the argument that the injuries were a foreseeable consequence of Mckesson's allegedly illegal activity of organizing a protest to block a roadway.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with the case. In 2020, they sent it back to determine whether state law would allow the officer to seek damages. The Louisiana Supreme Court eventually confirmed that the officer could seek damages, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Mckesson's First Amendment defense was rejected, allowing the lawsuit to proceed towards trial.

Mckesson's legal team brought the First Amendment claim back to the Supreme Court, arguing that holding a protest leader liable for the actions of a third party goes against established constitutional principles. The anonymous officer, on the other hand, contends that Mckesson's involvement in illegal activity distinguishes this case from the NAACP's precedent, where they were not held liable for supporting a local boycott that occasionally turned violent during the Civil Rights Movement.

The case has sparked a debate over the relevance of a 1982 Supreme Court decision regarding the NAACP's liability. Still, the officer's attorney argues that the time, place, and manner of delivering protected speech plays a role, especially when it consistently leads to looting, property destruction, injuries, and economic loss.

The Supreme Court's refusal to review the 5th Circuit ruling implies that the lawsuit against Mckesson can proceed, raising questions about the potential implications for the First Amendment rights of protest leaders. Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, who are representing Mckesson, express concerns about holding protest leaders accountable for the independent actions of others that they neither incited nor authorized.

As the case heads closer to trial, legal experts will closely monitor the outcome, as it could have far-reaching implications for the balance between the right to protest and the potential liability of protest leaders for the actions of those participating in demonstrations.