The Supreme Court on Friday revived a Mississippi evangelist's challenge to a city protest ordinance he was previously convicted of violating, making it easier for people to challenge laws they were convicted under to bar future prosecution.
Gabriel Olivier, a Christian street preacher, had asked the justices to let his lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of an ordinance restricting demonstrations outside a Brandon, Miss. amphitheater move forward. He claims the law runs afoul of his religious rights.
However, his conviction for violating the ordinance caused lower courts to reject his bid, based on a 1994 Supreme Court ruling that barred people from challenging laws they were previously convicted under to avoid backdoor efforts to challenge the conviction's validity.
A federal judge threw out Olivier's case, and a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed. Over several dissents, the full appeals court declined to rehear the case by a one-vote margin.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive legal advocates have praised the Supreme Court's ruling as a victory for religious liberty and the ability to seek prospective relief from laws that may violate constitutional rights. The decision allows individuals like Olivier to challenge the constitutionality of ordinances going forward without being barred by prior convictions.
Civil liberties organizations have noted that the ruling appropriately distinguishes between challenging the validity of a past conviction and seeking to prevent future prosecution under potentially unconstitutional laws. This distinction protects individuals' ability to seek remedies that address ongoing constitutional violations rather than being forever barred from challenging laws due to past enforcement.
The American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups have long argued that the Heck precedent should not be applied to prevent individuals from seeking prospective injunctions against laws that continue to threaten their rights.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative legal scholars and religious freedom advocates have welcomed the decision as a win for free exercise of religion. The ruling allows Olivier to continue his challenge to an ordinance that he argues restricts his ability to preach in public spaces.
Some conservative commentators have emphasized that the case highlights the importance of protecting religious expression, particularly in public forums. The ordinance's restrictions on demonstration areas and loudspeaker use have been viewed by some as potentially burdening religious speech.
The Trump administration partially backed Olivier's suit, agreeing that his efforts to seek future protection against the ordinance should be allowed. This administrative support reflected a broader recognition that individuals should have the ability to challenge laws they believe violate their constitutional rights.
What the Numbers Show
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0, to let Olivier's lawsuit proceed. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for the full court.
The full 5th Circuit declined to rehear the case by a one-vote margin, with several judges dissenting from that decision.
The ordinance in question diverts demonstrations outside the Brandon amphitheater to a designated area for three hours before events and one hour after, while banning loudspeakers that can be clearly heard more than 100 feet away.
Olivier pleaded no contest to violating the ordinance, meaning he admitted no guilt but did not dispute the charges. He agreed to a small fine, suspended sentence, and year of probation.
The ordinance was passed after Olivier and other demonstrators called passersby derogatory names including 'whores,' 'Jezebels,' and 'sissies' through a loudspeaker at the facility's busiest intersection, according to court filings from Brandon.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's unanimous ruling establishes an important legal precedent: individuals convicted under certain laws can still challenge those laws prospectively to prevent future prosecution, without the so-called 'Heck bar' applying to their cases.
The decision clarifies that Heck v. Humphrey only applies when plaintiffs seek remedies that would invalidate their past convictions, not when they seek purely prospective relief to protect against future enforcement. Olivier's case will now proceed in lower courts to examine the ordinance's constitutionality.
The case has implications for how cities can enforce protest ordinances and for individuals' ability to challenge laws they believe violate their rights. Lower courts will now consider whether Brandon's ordinance runs afoul of religious freedom protections or other constitutional principles.