The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 28, 2026, that Oklahoma's Riot Statute is constitutional, affecting activists and their rights to free speech during protests. The ruling comes after a group of young activists challenged the law following their prosecution for inciting a riot during racial-justice protests in 2020.
The case, Terry v. Drummond (No. 24-6046), centers on a group of activists who participated in protests following the police killing of George Floyd. They were charged with inciting a riot after a confrontation with police officers during a mural painting event. The activists sued the Oklahoma Attorney General and the Oklahoma County District Attorney, claiming the Riot Statute was unconstitutional for being overly broad and vague.
The plaintiffs, including Sincere Terry, Mia Hogsett, Tyreke Baker, Preston Nabors, and Trevour Webb, argued that the law infringed on their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the statute, which they claimed could punish protected speech. The district court denied their request, prompting the appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
The court's ruling affirmed the district court's decision, stating that the Riot Statute does not violate constitutional rights. The plaintiffs had argued that the law criminalized a wide range of speech without a clear intent requirement, potentially chilling free expression. However, the Tenth Circuit found that the law requires a mutual intent to use or threaten violence, which aligns with constitutional protections.
In its opinion, the court noted, "The Riot Statute requires the State to prove the defendant’s mutual or common intent with two or more others to use or threaten violence, accompanied by an immediate power to carry the threat into being." This interpretation was supported by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which clarified the statute's requirements in response to the Tenth Circuit's certification requests.
The ruling is significant for activists and their ability to protest without fear of legal repercussions. It underscores the balance between maintaining public order and protecting free speech rights. The court's decision will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the future, as it sets a precedent for the interpretation of laws concerning protests and civil rights.
Looking ahead, the plaintiffs have the option to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, though it remains unclear whether they will pursue that route. The ruling could also impact ongoing discussions about the limits of free speech in the context of protests and civil disobedience.