Share and Follow
WASHINGTON (AP) — On Friday, the Supreme Court breathed new life into a legal battle involving an evangelical Christian who was prohibited from protesting in Mississippi after accusations arose that he used a loudspeaker to hurl insults at individuals.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided with Gabriel Olivier, who argued that his rights to religious expression and free speech were infringed upon when he was detained for not relocating his preaching away from a suburban amphitheater. Authorities claimed Olivier used derogatory terms such as “whores,” “Jezebel,” and “nasty,” and occasionally displayed graphic signs of aborted fetuses.
Olivier sought to contest the law, arguing it unconstitutionally restricted free speech. However, lower courts had previously prevented him from taking legal action due to his conviction for violating the law. A precedent set by the Supreme Court in the 1990s prohibits using civil suits to challenge criminal convictions directly.
Nevertheless, the justices determined that Olivier could still pursue legal action, as his intent was solely to prevent future enforcement of the ordinance.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, stated, “Since Olivier requested only a forward-looking remedy — an injunction to prevent officials from enforcing the city ordinance in the future — his lawsuit is permitted to proceed, unaffected by his prior conviction.”
Olivier’s lawyers said he was demonstrating peacefully when he was arrested for refusing to move to a designated “protest zone.” The legal principle, they argued, affects free-speech cases across the political spectrum.
“This is not only a win for the right to share your faith in public, but also a win for every American’s right to have their day in court when their First Amendment rights are violated,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of the conservative nonprofit First Liberty Institute.
“As people of faith, we look to the judiciary to protect our constitutional right to spread the gospel,” said attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn.
The decision clears a path for him to file a civil-rights lawsuit, though it doesn’t guarantee an eventual win. Local governments have said that a ruling for Olivier could have wide repercussions by allowing a rush of new lawsuits against cities and towns.
The city of Brandon has said the restrictions weren’t about religion, and he had plenty of other legal avenues to challenge the law. The ordinance restricting Olivier to a designated “protest zone” has already survived another lawsuit, city attorneys said.