The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has added several cases to its docket to close out the 2024-25 term. Included in the mix is Olivier v. City of Brandon. A protester who pleaded no contest to violating an ordinance is seeking to sue the city for restricting his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by forcing him to preach in a designated area. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision denying his request, citing the 1994 SCOTUS case Heck v. Humphrey as correctly applied.
The question revolves around when a plaintiff can sue the government for alleged constitutional infringements after having been convicted of a crime under the law in question.
Feel Free To Speak Your Mind ... Over There
An evangelical Christian named Gabriel Olivier claims that he is compelled to share his faith with his fellow citizens of Brandon, Mississippi, regardless of whether said citizens wish him to. Olivier liked to preach near the Brandon Amphitheater, an 8,300-seat venue located in the park known as the Quarry.
Armed with a bullhorn, anti-abortion posters, and a preaching style that included calling those who passed by slurs such as "whores," "Jezebels," and "sissies," Olivier would make it a habit to be present on nights when concerts were taking place at the Amphitheater. This, he claimed, was to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In 2019, Brandon passed an ordinance to increase safety and pedestrian flow near the Amphitheater. It stated that all protests and demonstrations within a three-hour period before an event and for one hour after it concluded were required to be conducted in a specified location. It also prohibited speakers that could be clearly heard more than 100 feet away and stated that all signs must be handheld. The ordinance noted that this applied to all protests and demonstrations, regardless of their content.
In May of 2021, Olivier showed up outside the Amphitheater to preach before a scheduled country music concert. He was met there by the Brandon chief of police, who provided him with a copy of the ordinance and directed him to the location where he could legally protest. Finding the spot too far away from the crowds, Olivier returned to his previous spot and began preaching with his fellow protestors, at which point he was arrested for violating the ordinance.
Suing After a Criminal Conviction
Olivier was convicted after pleading nolo contendere (no contest). He was given a suspended sentence of ten days in jail, a year on probation, and a fine, which he paid. He later filed suit against the city, claiming that the city violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by not permitting him to share his religious beliefs. Olivier sought injunctions forbidding Brandon from enforcing the ordinance and sought monetary damages as well.
Using Heck v. Humphrey as precedent, the city moved for and was awarded a summary judgment. Since Olivier's original conviction was never overturned, the court ruled that he couldn't sue for violation of his constitutional rights when no adjudicated instance existed. It dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice.
Oliver fared no better with an appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, agreeing with its interpretation of Heck v. Humphrey and citing Clarke v. Stalder as well. The court refused Olivier's request to be reheard en banc through a majority decision of one vote.
Clarifying as Heck
Under Heck, the Supreme Court has held that when a victory in a lawsuit would require overturning the plaintiff's conviction, the suit must be classified as a habeas corpus action and dismissed if the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his state remedies.
Olivier argues that he is not seeking to have his conviction overturned, but rather is asking for an injunction to prevent further arrests, which are certain to happen if he again violates the law.
Federal appellate courts are split regarding when a plaintiff can bring a lawsuit for alleged constitutional infringements after a criminal conviction if the conviction was never overturned. SCOTUS agreed to take up the case at some point in the 2025-2026 term.
While Heck v. Humphrey has long been considered binding precedent, the Supreme Court in 2022 did make it easier for people to bring a malicious prosecution claim even if their case was dismissed instead of "won", which modified the Heck ruling. The Justices may be willing to further modify Heck in resolving the appellate court split.
The case could have significant ramifications for when convicted criminals can bring lawsuits alleging constitutional violations. With the petition granted, we'll find out what the Justices think sometime next term.
Related Resources
- How Does the U.S. Supreme Court Decide Whether To Hear a Case? (FindLaw's Legal System)
- Freedom of Speech (FindLaw's First Amendment)
- Learning Judicial Precedent (FindLaw's Surviving Law School)
