To be clear: It is still legal to peacefully assemble. This case addresses who is responsible for consequences if the assembly is no longer peaceful. This case involves a civil negligence complaint against a BLM organizer, not criminal charges. It does not find him guilty -- it only declares that, based on the alleged facts, the suit would not be dismissed on the merits.
The allegations (not proven facts, mind you) include the organizer Deray McKesson directed a protest outside a police station, actively encouraged illegal assembly to block traffic, encouraged "violent resistance" to police efforts to disperse the unlawful assembly, and praised or encouraged the destruction of private property, described as B&E and looting of nearby businesses. McKesson was at the scene of the protest, allegedly directing and encouraging the activity. This culminated in an unidentified protestor throwing a rock which caused injury to a police officer. All sides agree McKesson did not explicitly direct the rock throwing. The courts previously dismissed the officer's suits against BLM as an organization and allegations that McKesson was involved in a "civil conspiracy".
Established law says the organizer can be held liable for the actions of others if 1) he authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious activity, 2) if his public speeches were likely to incite lawless conduct, then he could be held liable for unlawful conduct that followed, or 3) his speeches at the scene implied he had given other, more explicit, instructions encouraging criminal activity before hand.
The disagreement between the district and circuit courts comes down to that word "specific". Is McKesson liable only if he authorized, directed or ratified the throwing of the rock, or can he be held liable if he authorized, directed or ratified other or generalized unlawful activity, which reasonably led to that specific rock?
Again, the Supreme Court's ruling does not mean McKesson is now guilty of civil or criminal conduct. It does not mean the allegations from the officer's suit are true (how much did McKesson actually incite or encourage violence or criminal activity..?). It only means that IF someone actively encourages unlawful protesting, they MAY be held liable for the consequences of that protesting.
If you think Trump should face legal consequences for January 6th, I'd love to hear a legal distinction between his actions and the alleged conduct of this BLM organizer.
