Supreme Court to discuss whether sidewalk preacher can continue First Amendment lawsuit

Lawyers representing Gabriel Olivier will argue before the Supreme Court that his street ministry is an expression of faith and should be safeguarded under the First Amendment. Oliviers activities, however, sparked controversy in a Mississippi suburb, where officials claim he and his group used a loudspeaker to verbally attack concertgoers with terms like whores and Jezebels. The city warns that allowing his case could open federal courts to numerous similar lawsuits from individuals attempting to overturn past convictions.

The justices must decide whether Olivier can contest Brandon, Mississippis protest regulations, despite having been convicted under the same ordinance months earlier. A 1994 Supreme Court ruling typically prevents convicted individuals from filing civil claims that would challenge their prior convictions.

City officials maintain that the case is not about religion or faith but about Olivier insisting on his preferred style of protest without regard for the rights or interests of anyone else. The outcome could influence similar local laws nationwide, affecting parade permits, zoning rules for adult businesses, and regulations on homeless encampments.

Although the conservative-leaning 6-3 Court has recently supported religious claims, Oliviers appeal currently centers more on procedural rights than direct First Amendment protections. His legal team also relies on a civil rights statute, Section 1983, which permits citizens to sue government officials for constitutional violations, raising questions about its scope highlighted in other cases this year.

Oliviers argument is that he seeks to exercise free speech and religious expression without fear of repeated prosecutions. He is partially represented by the First Liberty Institute, known for successfully defending religious cases at the Supreme Court.

Olivier visited Brandon in 2018 and 2019 to preach near the city amphitheater. In 2019, the city imposed an ordinance requiring protesters to stay in a designated area 265 feet away, limiting loudspeakers to 100 feet and mandating handheld signs. The city described the demonstrations as disruptive, with some displays and chants provoking concertgoers and necessitating police intervention.

In 2021, Olivier refused police instructions to move to the designated area during a Lee Brice concert and was arrested. He pleaded no contest, receiving a fine and a year of unsupervised probation. Rather than appealing his conviction, he filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming the ordinance violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The legal dispute hinges on the Heck v. Humphrey (1994) precedent, which bars civil suits that would undermine a prior conviction. The city argues Oliviers case falls under this restriction because his probation was ongoing when he filed the suit. Olivier, however, maintains his lawsuit targets future enforcement of the ordinance, not the past conviction.

Oliviers attorneys emphasize that federal courts should remain open to challenges even for those previously prosecuted for exercising their rights, noting that his earlier experience demonstrates the realistic threat of future enforcement.

The Supreme Court recently limited a Section 1983 case concerning Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, sparking debate over the laws reach. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting Section 1983s original interpretation, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and her colleagues urged careful consideration before major legal revisions. A ruling in Oliviers case is anticipated next year.

Author: Grace Ellison