Trump, Barr Sued for Use of Force Against Lafayette Square Demonstrators
The complaint centers on a Monday protest in Washington D.C.'s Lafayette Park, which was broken up by federal law enforcement with tear gas and pepper spray.
June 04, 2020 at 06:44 PM
4 minute read
Black Lives Matter D.C. and other protesters on Thursday sued President Donald Trump, U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and other federal officials for allegedly violating their first First and Fourth Amendment rights.
The complaint centers on a Monday protest in Washington, D.C.'s Lafayette Park, which was broken up by federal law enforcement with tear gas and pepper spray and has been the subject of numerous media reports. After the crowd was dispersed, the president walked through Lafayette Park to take a picture in front of St. John's Church, holding a bible.
Several organizations brought the suit on behalf of the protesters, including Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the law firm of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. The Thursday lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
"This is a very dramatic example in how rights enshrined in the First Amendment are all under challenge," said Arnold & Porter senior counsel John Freedman, who is representing the plaintiffs pro bono. "These are protesters who were engaged in nonviolent, peaceful protest and senior government officials ordered that they be assaulted."
A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The plaintiffs included Black Lives Matter D.C., which organized the demonstrations, and four protesters—all of whom allegedly suffered injuries or trauma as a result of law enforcement action.
All of the plaintiffs were at the June 1demonstration at Lafayette Square when, according to the complaint, Barr gave an order to clear the square. Law enforcement "rushed and attacked the assembled protesters without warning or provocation, climbing and jumping over barriers behind which the demonstrators were standing," the suit claims.
The plaintiffs allege that Barr's order—which came just before the president gave a 6:30 p.m. speech in the White House Rose Garden—violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly and Fourth Amendment right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were not given prior warning, nor did law enforcement ask the demonstrators to leave before they escalated. Law enforcement officers fired flash-bang shells, tear gas, smoke canisters and rubber bullets into the crowd, the complaint said, and assaulted demonstrators with "fists, feet, batons and shields."
The complaint details graphic accounts of the protest, including a rubber bullet lodged in a victim's face and multiple bruises allegedly inflicted on plaintiffs by law enforcement.
By the morning of June 3, federal law enforcement officers blocked access to Lafayette Square, preventing future demonstrators from protesting in the space, the complaint said.
The plaintiffs allege that the violence Monday chilled demonstrators from exercising their right to protest. Black Lives Matter D.C. did not attend demonstrations the following day, fearing harm at the hands of law enforcement, the complaint said, adding that the violence led to a significant reduction in the number of demonstrators Tuesday.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that Black Lives Matter D.C. faces the imminent harm of diverting resources to protect its members' and supporters' ability to engage in free speech and assembly. "Its effectiveness as a political entity will also be irreparably harmed by its inability to generate participation in protest events, because potential participants will have been deterred from participating," the suit claims.
The lawyers for the plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to rule the dispersal a violation of the First and Fourth Amendment and that the judge issue an injunction ordering the defendants to cease similar actions in the future. The attorneys are also asking for compensatory and punitive damages.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute read‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250