## Facts

- Charlottesville residents and counter-protesters alleged they were injured during the August 11–12, 2017 “Unite the Right” events in Charlottesville, Virginia.
- Plaintiffs sued numerous individuals and groups associated with white-supremacist and neo-Nazi movements, including principal rally organizer Jason Kessler and other leaders and organizations.
- The complaint alleged extensive pre-event coordination, including online planning (e.g., Discord) that included racist rhetoric and discussions of tactics, equipment, and confrontations with counter-protesters.
- Plaintiffs alleged that defendants encouraged participants to bring weapons and to use force against counter-protesters and that the ensuing violence was planned rather than incidental.
- Violence occurred during a torch march on August 11 and during the main rally on August 12, when clashes allegedly led to plaintiffs’ injuries; a car attack by James Alex Fields Jr. killed Heather Heyer and injured others.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint failed to plausibly allege conspiracy and that the claims impermissibly targeted protected speech and association under the First Amendment.
- One defendant, Michael Peinovich, was alleged to have promoted white-nationalist views and been connected to rally promotion, but plaintiffs’ allegations tying him to the violent agreement were more limited.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an agreement among defendants to engage in racially motivated violence sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and related state-law theories.
2. Whether the First Amendment barred liability where defendants characterized their conduct as political speech, protest, and association.
3. Whether § 1985(3) permitted claims by white plaintiffs and other non-minority plaintiffs alleged to have been targeted as supporters of racial minorities or opponents of white supremacy.
4. Whether the complaint adequately alleged that each moving defendant, including Michael Peinovich, joined the asserted conspiracy.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in large part the motions to dismiss.
- The court held plaintiffs plausibly alleged that most defendants formed a conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence leading to plaintiffs’ injuries, allowing core § 1985(3) and related claims to proceed.
- The court rejected a categorical First Amendment defense at the pleading stage, holding that agreements to commit violence and violent conduct are not protected speech or association.
- The court allowed claims by white and other non-minority plaintiffs to proceed where they were allegedly targeted as allies of racial minorities or as opponents of racial supremacy.
- The court dismissed claims against Michael Peinovich for insufficient allegations that he joined the violent conspiracy, while permitting claims against most other defendants based on more specific allegations of planning or coordination.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly state a claim; it does not resolve factual disputes or weigh defenses on a developed record.
- A § 1985(3) claim requires plausible allegations of (i) a conspiracy, (ii) motivated by class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus, (iii) aimed at depriving protected rights, and (iv) resulting injury; circumstantial allegations may suffice when they plausibly support an agreement.
- The First Amendment protects advocacy and assembly, including unpopular or hateful views, but does not immunize conspiracies to commit violence or violent acts.
- § 1985(3) may reach conspiracies targeting not only racial minorities but also those attacked because of their association with, or support for, racial minorities or racial equality.
- Conspiracy liability requires factual allegations connecting each defendant to the agreement; generalized ideological alignment or post hoc commentary is insufficient without plausible participation in the unlawful plan.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a coordinated, racially motivated violent conspiracy connected to the Charlottesville events and allowed most federal and state claims to proceed past the pleading stage, while dismissing claims against at least one defendant for lack of adequate allegations tying him to the asserted agreement.


Sines v. Kessler, 324 F. Supp. 3d 765 (W.D. Va. 2018)