On April 15, the United States Supreme Court denied the appeal of well-known Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, thereby allowing the suit Mckesson v. Roe to stand and threatening one of the core pillars of American democratic society.

In the lawsuit, a police officer who was present at the 2016 protest in Baton Rouge, La. against the killing of Alton Sterling elected to sue Mckesson after the officer was hit with a rock thrown during the protest. The officer has not claimed that Mckesson threw the rock, nor did he allege that Mckesson even knew that the rock was thrown. 

Rather, the suit was filed on the idea that Mckesson, as an organizer of the protest, should be held responsible for the assault because “he ‘should have known’ an assault could occur.”

It was held that the idea presented here of “negligent protest” is legally valid. Due to the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, in the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, the organization of protests now faces unprecedented legal threats. 

The horror of this should go without saying. The right to organize and the right to protest are some of the most basic rights of American citizens. It is an intrinsic part of our national identity. It was how this country was founded, to begin with. 

In the states affected by this decision, citizens advocating for change now face punishment if even a single person commits a crime while they also happen to be present at a protest. The person need not necessarily even be an active member of the organizing group. The ways in which it would be possible to exploit the implications of this law effectively erase the freedom to protest in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi due to the sheer degree of risk associated with it.

Additionally, to assume that the way of thinking associated with this provision will stay strictly in the affected states would be misguided. Through examples such as the suspension of students at Columbia University and police reactions at CU Denver to protests against the war in Gaza, we know that attitudes towards protesters are strained across the nation. The ideology made evident in the Supreme Court’s decision threatens to spread nationwide.

This use of legal threats to infringe upon the most basic freedoms of American citizens is not only mortifying but also highly hypocritical.

One must wonder whether or not the Supreme Court has considered the implications that stem from the logic it has chosen to uphold. If the leaders of a movement are responsible for the actions of all associated members during an organized action, what does this say about the events of Jan. 6? What does this say about the United States military in general? 

The egregious cases of human rights abuses committed at Abu Ghraib during the Iraq War included assault, physical and sexual abuse and torture. Should military leaders, no matter where they fall in the chain of command, be held liable for these crimes? They were perpetrated by enlisted soldiers and as such can be considered members of the army’s “movement.” 

The president, as commander-in-chief, should have known that such abuses could occur. After all, the findings of the Stanford Prison Experiment showed that human beings easily turn to uncivilized, violent behavior when put in a position of absolute power over others. These findings had been public knowledge for thirty years prior to the incidents at Abu Ghraib – plenty of time for the military to consider the possible consequences of its actions.

What of the horrors that occurred in Central and South America as a result of American military intervention? Can former President Reagan be held legally responsible for the actions of the soldiers who massacred farming communities in Guatemala, knowing they were ultimately acting in support of the United States’ 20th-century, anti-socialist agenda?

If the United States government is prepared to use the law to limit our most fundamental rights, then it should likewise be prepared to be held accountable under the same provisions.