The Supreme Court unanimously allowed a Mississippi pastor to continue his lawsuit challenging a local law barring protests near a public amphitheater outside of designated zones, despite the pastor being previously punished for violating the law.
Justice Elena Kagan penned the high court’s opinion in Olivier v. City of Brandon, finding the lawsuit brought by Gabriel Olivier against the Brandon, Mississippi law would only be preventing future enforcement of the law, rather than affecting his past conviction. Because the Supreme Court’s precedent in the 1994 case Heck v. Humphrey only bars a person previously convicted of a law from bringing such a challenge if it would affect his or her previous conviction, the unanimous Supreme Court found on Friday that Olivier’s case may proceed.
“In other words, the relief requested is only prospective; Olivier seeks neither the reversal of, nor compensation for, his prior conviction,” Kagan wrote for the unanimous high court. “And Olivier has since made clear that he has no interest in using a favorable judgment in this suit to later get his record expunged or avoid his conviction’s collateral effects. The suit is just meant to ensure that Olivier may return to the amphitheater to speak without fear of further punishment.”
“Given that Olivier asked for only a forward-looking remedy—an injunction stopping officials from enforcing the city ordinance in the future—his suit can proceed, notwithstanding his prior conviction. Heck, properly understood, does not say otherwise,” Kagan said.
The high court’s decision reverses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s previous ruling that had tossed out Olivier’s lawsuit. Olivier has challenged the local law as violating the First Amendment and 14th Amendment because it bars him from preaching outside the designated zones.
“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Gabe’s right to his day in court,” Allyson Ho, Olivier’s lawyer who argued for him before the justices during December’s oral arguments, said in a statement. “It’s just common sense that a citizen who is arrested under an unconstitutional law should be able to challenge that law. As people of faith, we look to the judiciary to protect our constitutional right to spread the gospel.”
Olivier also celebrated the ruling, vowing to push forward with his lawsuit against the limits on where he may preach outside of the amphitheater in Brandon.
“My goal from the beginning was to be granted my rights as an American citizen under our great Constitution,” Olivier said in a statement. “Now all people with deeply held Christian religious beliefs who are called to share the good news can do so in the public arena.”
Matthew Cavedon, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the libertarian Cato Institute, praised the result, saying the Supreme Court properly ruled that people who have been found guilty under a law should be permitted to challenge a law’s future enforcement in court.
“People who have suffered the consequences of a law are often in the best position to challenge its constitutionality going forward,” Cavedon said. “As the Court rightly noted, no one should be put to the choice of either facing repeat arrests to assert their rights or leaving the defense of them to others.
SUPREME COURT GRAPPLES WITH ALLOWING PASTOR TO SUE OVER LAW HE HAS PREVIOUSLY VIOLATED
“The Court also pointed out how illogical it would be to stop someone convicted of violating an unconstitutional law from challenging it while otherwise identical people could,” he said.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Olivier case was the only opinion released Friday, and all of the remaining decisions in cases this term are expected to be released by the end of June. The justices will return to hearing cases on Monday, when they hear arguments in a case over the legality of late-arriving mail ballot laws.
