The son of a Republican lawmaker is suing Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe alleging his First Amendment rights were violated when Kehoe preemptively declared a state of emergency and activated the National Guard in anticipation of what turned out to be peaceful protests against the Trump administration across the state and nation in June.
Lucas Cierpiot, a disability-rights activist from Blue Springs, said he felt intimidated by the governor’s actions and too unsafe to attend any “No Kings” protests on June 14. His lawsuit alleges the order violated Cierpiot’s right to free speech, free assembly and association.
It also was an act of discrimination based on disability, Cierpiot contends, since those with vision impairments would be uniquely vulnerable “to projectile weapons fired by crowd control troops.” Cierpiot is legally blind in one eye.
“It was an abuse of process to declare a false emergency when a true emergency did not exist,” Cierpiot writes in his lawsuit. “When Kehoe issued the order, there were no protests occurring anywhere in Missouri at all, and certainly not any that were un-peaceful.”
A spokeswoman for Kehoe declined comment on the pending lawsuit, instead pointing to the governor’s June 12 statement when he declared the state of emergency.
“We respect, and will defend, the right to peacefully protest,” Kehoe said at the time, “but we will not tolerate violence or lawlessness in our state.”
Two days before scheduled protests in June, Kehoe signed Executive Order 25-25, activating the Missouri National Guard as a “precautionary measure” to protect against “events that are occurring or could occur.”
The move was denounced by the ACLU of Missouri as an “unnecessary provocation to thwart public dissent” and by House Minority Leader Ashley Aune as “a blatant attempt to intimidate and suppress First Amendment rights.”
A day after issuing the order, Kehoe announced that he would be leaving the country during the state of emergency for a long-planned trade mission to Europe.
Thousands gathered that Saturday at protests in cities and towns across the state, as well as around the steps of the Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City. The weekend protests were peaceful and came and went without incident.
Protesters demonstrated throughout the U.S. that day as President Donald Trump hosted a military parade in Washington on his birthday. The coordinated events followed Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Demonstrators spoke against Trump’s immigration crackdowns and dismissals of federal workers.
Cierpiot was not among the protesters.
He writes that he originally planned to attend, given his history of advocating for “civil, constitutional and anti-discrimination rights of persons with blindness, low-vision and/or diseases of the eye.”
But Cierpiot said the governor’s order and the activation of the National Guard prevented him from participating in the protests.
“Kehoe issuing this escalatory false emergency declaration represented a very real threat to plaintiff’s safety,” the lawsuit says, adding that Cierpiot was not afraid of anything related to the protests themselves and only felt unsafe due to the “possibility of police or military response.”
Rubber bullets, pepper spray and tear gas, Cierpiot says in the suit, “are a significant threat to a patriot with low-vision and/or diseases of the eye,” threatening the “permanent loss of what remaining vision plaintiff does have as a price of exercising free speech.”
Cierpiot — whose father is state Sen. Mike Cierpiot, a Lee’s Summit Republican — is currently representing himself in the lawsuit, which was filed in Jackson County. He said in an email to The Independent that he is in the process of interviewing attorneys.
Last year, Cierpiot garnered headlines after filing a formal complaint accusing Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey of violating the rules of professional conduct for lawyers. The complaint focused on campaign contributions and accused Bailey of using his office “for his personal political benefit.”
The Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel declined to investigate the complaint, leading Cierpiot to request the Missouri Supreme Court intervene. The court declined to get involved and the ethics complaint was dismissed.
