Supreme Court allows anti-abortion protester’s free speech suit to proceed

Listen to this article

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled unanimously that an evangelical Christian preacher and antiabortion activist can sue a Mississippi city for arresting him for protesting outside of a designated area in what he argued was a violation of his free speech rights.

Gabriel Olivier was arrested in May 2021 by police in Brandon, Mississippi, for protesting outside of a city amphitheater with his evangelical group. They waved pictures of aborted fetuses, passed out fliers and used a loudspeaker. The protest took place outside of a designated area for demonstrations in violation of a city ordinance.

Olivier pleaded no contest to violating the ordinance. He was issued a small fine and sentenced to one year’s probation.

A few months later, Olivier sued the city, alleging the local law violated his constitutional free speech rights. Lower courts blocked Olivier’s lawsuit from moving forward, citing a rule that says criminal defendants cannot file civil rights lawsuits that could undermine the legality of their convictions. Doing so could allow a defendant to walk free and end-run the normal criminal appeals process. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Olivier was subject to what is known as the Heck rule.

The rule was named after the 1994 precedent Heck v. Humphrey, in which the high court unanimously held that a defendant needed to be cleared in criminal court before suing over the legality of their conviction.

But The justices sided with Olivier’s attorneys who said he should be able to sue because his lawsuit would have no practical effect on his conviction. Olivier was never imprisoned, they said, and he sued only to shield himself from future charges under the statute.

The city had contended the rule should still apply to Olivier. Otherwise he could invalidate his conviction, setting a precedent in which the convictions of other criminal defendants could be undermined outside of the criminal appeals process.

During oral arguments in December, the justices weighed whether to apply the rule to Olivier.