Mississippi Street Evangelist’s Free Speech Case Heard by SCOTUS
Decision confronts 1st Amendment issues about how cities draft and enforce protest and speech regulations in public spaces
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Dec. 3 in a case that could reshape how courts handle civil rights claims tied to free speech and religious expression.
At the center of the dispute is Gabriel Olivier, a street evangelist from Brandon, Mississippi. Olivier was arrested in 2021 for refusing to stay within a designated protest zone near a public amphitheater. City officials had adopted an ordinance restricting demonstrations outside the venue. Olivier, who regularly shared religious messages and anti-abortion materials with a loudspeaker, challenged the rule as a violation of his First Amendment rights, as The Baptist Paper has reported.
After his arrest, Olivier entered a no-contest plea and received a fine and probation. He later filed a federal lawsuit under a civil rights law known as Section 1983, arguing the ordinance unconstitutionally limited his speech. But lower courts tossed his case, citing a 1994 Supreme Court precedent known as the “Heck bar.” Under Heck v. Humphrey, individuals who challenge a conviction via civil rights claims must first show that the conviction has been invalidated through State appeal or other means.
Olivier’s lawyers told the Justices that his situation is different. They maintain he isn’t seeking money damages, nor is he asking the court to overturn his conviction. Instead, they want to stop the city from enforcing an ordinance they say is unconstitutional. As attorney Allyson Ho argued: “A prior conviction shouldn't forever bar a claim for future protection.”
During arguments, several Justices questioned whether applying Heck rigidly could block legitimate constitutional challenges. Others expressed concern about opening the floodgates to lawsuits from people who have already been convicted under local laws. The city of Brandon has maintained that Olivier forfeited his chance to contest the ordinance by not appealing his conviction through the State court system.
The case touches on broader questions about how free speech and religious exercise are balanced with public safety rules in public spaces. Thomas Berry, Director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, explained the lower court’s reasoning: “The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that he was prevented from using Section 1983 to challenge this ordinance because he has already been convicted under it.”
The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected to come in mid-2026, could clarify limits on civil rights lawsuits that arise after criminal convictions. It may also affect how cities across the country draft and enforce protest and speech regulations on public grounds.
