What You Need to Know: Friday, April 19
SCOTUS declines to hear a case about protesting, a Michigan shooter's parents are sentenced, jurors are selected in Trump's criminal trial, and coral reefs face steep challenges
The Civic Listening Corps was formed in January 2022 to give communities across the country the tools and training needed to identify and fight the misinformation we see online every day. Our goal is to use the knowledge we gather together to prevent further attempts to undermine our civic discourse.
By subscribing to our reports, sharing this post, or directing your friends and family to civiclistening.org, YOU can make a difference against the spread of online misinformation.
Mckesson v. Doe and the Supreme Court
What happened? On July 5, 2016, Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man, was shot and killed by two police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Four days later, DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist, helped organize a protest outside of a nearby police station, during which an unknown individual threw a rock-like object at one of the police officers, injuring his teeth, head, and jaw. Although Mckesson did not throw the object, the unnamed officer sued him for monetary damages given his role as the protest’s organizer, arguing that “Mckesson should have known from his actions leading the protest that it would turn violent.”
Originally, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2017, arguing Mckesson was protected under the First Amendment. However, in 2023, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the previous decision, ruling “2-1 that the officer should be able to argue that Mckesson didn’t exercise reasonable care in leading protesters onto a highway, setting up a police confrontation in which the officer, identified in court papers only as John Doe, was injured,” and that Mckesson could be sued. Mckesson appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on April 15, announced its decision not to take up the case. The Court's choice upholds the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, whose jurisdiction extends over Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.
Why didn’t the Supreme Court take the case? What are the implications? In an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor explaining the Court’s decision not to take the case, she “reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado,” a case that determined the “First Amendment ‘precludes punishment’ for inciting violent action.” Political commentators argue that if the lawsuit against Mckesson is successful, a precedent will be set holding protest organizers liable for actions undertaken by others at protests, making it likely that individuals will stop organizing protests to avoid financial consequences. In an interview with the ACLU, Mckesson voiced similar concerns, stating, “If these things continue, the cost of being a protester will be so high that I can imagine it will lead to people choosing not to take part [in protest].” Mckesson’s lawyers believe he will “ultimately prevail in lower courts, even if they would have preferred the Supreme Court end the case now.”
Michigan school shooter’s parents sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison
What’s the case about? On April 9, James and Jennifer Crumbley — the parents of Ethan Crumbley, who was sentenced to life without parole in December 2023 for fatally shooting four students at Michigan’s Oxford High School — received 10 to 15 years in prison for their negligence, which the judge deemed contributed to the shooting. The Crumbleys have already served more than two years of this sentence after being unable to meet their $500,000 bond. Their negligence included “unfettered access to a gun or guns as well as ammunition in [the] home” and “ignoring signs of [Ethan’s] spiraling mental health.” On the day of the shooting, school staff suggested that Ethan’s parents withdraw him from class after discovering violent drawings in his notebook. His parents refused, claiming they needed to return to work, and neglected to disclose a recent gun purchase James Crumbley made for Ethan just four days before. At the sentencing, Jennifer Crumbley did not express regret for her actions leading up to the shooting, stating, “I’ve asked myself if I would have done anything differently, and I wouldn’t have,” claiming “[Ethan] seemed "so normal.”
What are the implications? The dual convictions of James and Jennifer Crumbley mark the first instance where the parents of a mass shooter are criminally responsible for the actions undertaken by their child, setting a legal precedent that could allow prosecutors to implicate parents for their children’s wrongdoings. Prosecutors in the Crumbley case hope the parents’ conviction will inspire other parents to adhere more strictly to gun safety recommendations and more closely monitor their children. Others voiced concerns over this newfound legal responsibility. Michigan attorney Lisa Baratta, in an email, reflected on the implications of this precedent, stating, “Parents will need to keep tabs on their child’s mental health, friend group, social media presence, etc. Responsible parents already do these things. The concern is that the definition of ‘responsible’ will get blurred, and innocent parents will be charged.”
Tune into this episode of Vox’s Today, Explained to learn more about the Crumbley sentencing.
Jury selection begins in Trump hush money case
Remind me what’s happening with this case… Prior to the 2016 election, Donald Trump indirectly paid two women he had previously had relations with to prevent them from speaking publicly about their affairs. Trump paid Karen McDougal via National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media, Inc., which purchased the rights to her story. Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, signed a nondisclosure agreement in return for her silence on her and Trump’s encounters, which was paid via Trump’s fixer, Michael Cohen. In 2018, the payment Cohen made to Daniels was reported by the Wall Street Journal, leading Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to accuse Trump of “falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election.” If Trump is found guilty, he could be sentenced to probation or four years in prison on each count.
Jury selection begins This week, the search for fair and impartial jurors (as well as alternates) began in New York City. The jury will be made of English-speaking U.S. citizens over the age of 18 who have not been convicted of a felony, who reside in Manhattan, and are eligible for jury duty. Although jury selection is made at random, the judge will ask potential jurors 42 questions to determine their impartiality on the matter, including questions about their media consumption, potential affiliations with Trump or his businesses, or if they have a connection to extremist groups, such as the Proud Boys or Oathkeepers. As of Thursday, all 12 juror seats had been filled. Alternates are being selected on Friday, with opening statements expected Monday.
Updates to Trump’s other legal battles In addition to the hush money case, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments over “whether Trump can be prosecuted for election interference” for his roles in the events of January 6. A trial date has not been set for the Georgia election interference case, where Trump has been charged with nine counts, including “filing false documents, false statements and writings, and assorted conspiracy charges.” A case debating the 40 felony counts Trump faces for his handling of documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago is set to begin May 20, but will likely face delays. Trump took to social media to comment on the recent hush-money case, posting about witnesses Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, contrary to his gag order, which “bars him from commenting publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and jurors.” On Tuesday, DA Alvin Bragg, overseeing the case, filed a motion to hold Trump in contempt for violating the gag order, to which Trump responded, “I will gladly become a Modern Day Nelson Mandela — It will be my GREAT HONOR.”
What’s happening to our coral reefs?
What is coral reef bleaching? On Monday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) documented the fourth global coral bleaching event, marking the second incident within the past decade. Coral reef bleaching occurs when ocean temperatures rise so drastically that the symbiotic algae on the coral are removed, causing the coral to turn white. Last month, scientists recorded a record-high average global sea temperature of 69.93 degrees. Coral reefs play an important role in their ecosystems, such as “nurtur[ing] an estimated quarter of ocean species at some point during their life cycles, support fish that provide protein for millions of people and protect[ing] coasts from storms.” If temperatures are returned to normal, the coral will recover, but if they remain perpetually elevated, the coral will die.
What can scientists do about it? Scientists are engineering solutions aimed at helping algae and coral become more heat resistant. At the Australian Institute of Marine Science, outside of Townsville, Queensland, scientists are studying multi-generations of coral to identify the algae most resistant to hot temperatures and breed them, a phenomenon known as “assisted evolution.” Others have taken reef restoration measures, such as coral gardening, which helps coral fragments attach to one another; coral IVF, which involves capturing and releasing coral eggs and sperm to encourage reproduction; and coral aquaculture, allowing coral to grow in a controlled environment before returning it to natural reefs. Despite these innovations to mitigate coral damage, scientists emphasize reducing rising temperatures by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.