Mall of America protest: why injunction can't stop Black Lives Matter

The Mall of America has blocked three Black Lives Matter 'leaders' from protesting. But the movement doesn't rely on leaders, which makes it hard to stop.

Jerry Holt/Star Tribune/AP
Kandace Montgomery (l.) and Miski Noor of Black Lives Matter speak with media Monday after a hearing at the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis. A judge ruled Tuesday that several local Black Lives Matter organizers cannot demonstrate at the Mall of America on the busy shopping day before Christmas Eve, but she said she couldn’t stop others from attending the protest.

For Black Lives Matter protesters, the term “leader” often has a very different meaning. At any protest, ask them who their leaders are, and they’ll often simply say: “Just look around you.”

A movement of mostly the young, and connected by the informal ties of social media, the broad protest movement that has emerged in past two years has mostly rejected what they call the hierarchies of top-down leadership models.

So when a Minnesota judge issued an injunction barring three Black Lives Matter organizers from joining the potentially-disruptive protest they helped plan at Mall of America on Wednesday, they simply brushed it off.

"We are a leader-full organization,” said Kandace Montgomery, one of three organizers barred by the judge's order on Tuesday. “Just barring three of us does not mean that you've stopped our work," she said, saying the Wednesday protests would proceed.

Earlier, the nation’s famously sprawling supermall, located in the Twin Cities suburbs, had sought a temporary restraining order against these three young organizers and others. But attorneys for Mall of America had also asked the court to restrain anyone who might be affiliated with “Black Lives Matter Minneapolis.”

The judge, Karen Janisch of Hennepin County, refused. She noted there was no legal entity called Black Lives Matter Minneapolis. “Although protests and actions within shopping malls or other spaces have been an issue of legal disputes and requests for injunctions for decades,” she reasoned, the court could not, issue “a broad temporary restraining order enjoining the future acts of unidentified individuals or the public at large.”

Legal experts note the long tradition of litigation when it comes to free speech and private property, and the unique issue this case presents, as protests are often informally organized now on social media.

Judge Janisch rejected Mall of America’s request to force the organizers to tell potential protesters that the event would be cancelled. The retail mecca could eject trespassers, but they could not control people's behavior outside the mall’s premises.

Last December, a boisterous crowd of more than 2,000 protesters disrupted Mall of America shopping for nearly two hours, chanting “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” and participating in “die ins” – part of the nascent movement coalescing around the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown last year.

Dozens of stores were forced to close and police arrested at least 25 people – on one of the busiest shopping days of the year last December.

On Wednesday, Mall of America officials were bracing for protests, even after the judge issued an injunction barring Ms. Montgomery, Michael McDowell, Miski Noor.

Last year, protesters told the Monitor, too, that they were a “leader-full movement.”

"It's a horizontal, leaderless organization, so basically what that means is that we all work together as a team and we all decided what we want to do as a group," Andrea Schmidt, a nursing student protesting in St. Louis, said.

And they often consciously reject any leadership style featuring dynamic, visible heads of the movement – like a Martin Luther King Jr. or the Rev. Al Sharpton, many observers note. From the dozens of independent groups to the larger umbrella coalitions that have formed throughout the country, these often remain unofficial in the legal sense.

The protest planned to take place at Mall of America on Wednesday comes after a tense year in Minneapolis. In November, police shot and killed Jamar Clark, an unarmed black man. During subsequent protests urged by Black Lives Matter Minneapolis, five black protesters were injured after being shot by four men – three who were white and one who was Asian. The men have been arrested and charged with assault, but not hate crimes.

Under the hastags #BlackXmas2 and #Justice4Jamar, Black Lives Matter Minneapolis's Facebook and Twitter pages helped spread the word of the Mall of America protest on Wednesday.

Though Janisch did not issue a temporary restraining order barring Black Lives Matter protesters as a group on Wednesday, Mall of America can remove, with the help of law enforcement, any person who participates in an unauthorized protest.

"The Court's decision should not be interpreted as authorizing or permitting others to engage in political demonstration at the Mall of America without the express permission of the Mall of America," Janisch wrote.

Some legal experts, however, believe even her restraining order on the three organizers may have gone too far – handing down an injunction against a vaguely defined potential act of advocacy.

“It is perhaps understandable that the Mall worried about the impact of a large demonstration on customer attendance on one of the last shopping days before Christmas,” writes Paul Alan Levy, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group, in the Consumer Law & Policy blog. “But from a First Amendment perspective, I wonder whether the law might not have been better served by denying the requested restraining order and leaving the plaintiff to have the police eject specific individuals whose behavior was objectionable.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Mall of America protest: why injunction can't stop Black Lives Matter
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today