Mckesson v. Doe
592 U. S. ____ (2020) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a case presents a novel and uncertain question of state law that is a necessary predicate to deciding a significant constitutional issue, a federal court should first consider certifying the state law question to the state's highest court to avoid premature constitutional adjudication.
Facts:
- DeRay Mckesson organized a demonstration in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to protest a police shooting.
- During the protest, Mckesson allegedly directed demonstrators to occupy a highway in front of the police headquarters.
- As police began to clear the highway, an unknown individual threw a rock-like object.
- The object struck Officer John Doe, causing him severe injuries, including brain trauma and the loss of teeth.
- The individual who threw the object was never identified.
Procedural Posture:
- Officer Doe sued DeRay Mckesson for negligence in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
- The District Court (a trial court) dismissed Doe's negligence claim, holding that it was barred by the First Amendment.
- Doe, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Mckesson as appellee.
- A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court, ruling that the First Amendment did not bar the negligence claim under its interpretation of Louisiana law.
- Mckesson's petition for rehearing en banc before the full Fifth Circuit resulted in an 8-8 deadlock, leaving the panel's decision in effect.
- Mckesson then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should a federal appellate court decide a novel First Amendment question that depends on an uncertain interpretation of state tort law without first certifying the state law question to the state's highest court?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A federal appellate court should not decide a novel and significant First Amendment issue that is contingent on an uncertain interpretation of state tort law without first seeking guidance from the state's highest court. The Court reasoned that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance counsels against deciding the important First Amendment question of a protest organizer's liability if the underlying state law does not permit recovery in the first place. The Fifth Circuit's holding relied on a novel interpretation of Louisiana negligence law, which generally does not impose a duty to protect others from the criminal acts of third parties. Because determining whether such a duty exists involves complex moral, social, and economic judgments best left to the state courts, and because certification would prevent a potentially hypothetical constitutional ruling, the appropriate course was to certify the state law questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court. This approach respects cooperative judicial federalism and ensures that federal courts do not needlessly venture into unsettled areas of state law to decide constitutional questions prematurely.
Dissenting - Thomas
Justice Thomas dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principles of judicial federalism and constitutional avoidance, instructing federal courts to exercise restraint when confronted with cases that hinge on novel questions of state law. By vacating the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remanding for certification, the Supreme Court deliberately sidestepped the substantive First Amendment question regarding the scope of liability for protest organizers. This procedural move signals to lower courts the importance of clarifying state law foundations before building significant constitutional precedent upon them, potentially delaying the resolution of liability standards for protest-related activities but ensuring that future constitutional rulings are not based on speculative interpretations of state law.
