The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an evangelical Christian preacher can move forward with a First Amendment lawsuit after he was arrested for preaching outside a Mississippi amphitheater.
The case centered on Gabriel Olivier, who was arrested in Brandon, Mississippi, after refusing to move to a designated “protest zone” while sharing his religious message near a public venue.
Olivier was convicted of violating a city ordinance that restricted demonstrations to specific areas and was ordered to pay a $350 fine.
However, he later sued the city, arguing that the restrictions violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
Lower courts rejected Olivier’s lawsuit, ruling that because he had already been convicted under the ordinance, a legal doctrine established in the Supreme Court case Heck v. Humphrey prevented him from challenging the policy.
The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed.
Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said Olivier was not attempting to overturn his previous conviction but was instead seeking protection against future enforcement of the ordinance.
“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,” Kagan wrote.
The ruling means Olivier can continue pursuing his civil rights lawsuit, although it does not guarantee he will ultimately win his First Amendment challenge.
His attorneys celebrated the decision, arguing that the ruling protects Americans’ ability to challenge government restrictions on speech.
“This ruling 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.
Attorney Allyson Ho also praised the outcome.
“As people of faith, we look to the judiciary to protect our constitutional right to spread the gospel,” Ho said.
Olivier’s legal team argued that he was peacefully expressing his religious beliefs when he was arrested for refusing to relocate.
They maintained that the case had broader implications beyond religion because similar restrictions could impact political activists, protesters and others engaging in public speech.
The city of Brandon defended its ordinance, arguing the restrictions were not aimed at religion and were designed to regulate demonstrations at the venue.
City officials also argued that Olivier had other ways to challenge the policy and noted that the ordinance had survived a previous legal challenge.
Kagan explained that the key issue was the type of legal relief Olivier requested, per the Conservative Brief.
“Olivier’s suit merely attempts to prevent a future prosecution, so the Heck bar does not come into play,” she wrote.
“There is no looking back in Olivier’s suit; both in the allegations made, and in the relief sought, the suit is entirely future-oriented,” Kagan continued.
“His suit to enjoin the ordinance, so he can return to the amphitheater, may proceed.”
The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower courts, where Olivier will now have the opportunity to argue that the city’s restrictions violated his constitutional rights.
The ruling marks another major Supreme Court decision involving the balance between local government regulations and First Amendment protections.
