- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
March 28, 2026 at 3:15 am #11757
Kris Marker
KeymasterWe post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
WHAT THE HECK?
Gabriel Olivier is a Mississippi street preacher whose brand of persuasion is to yell at people seeking abortions that they were “whores” and Jezebels. The City of Brandon convicted him of refusing to move his protest to a designated area (where his shaming would, apparently, have been less effective). He paid a fine as punishment for his recalcitrance.
Because he still wanted to preach near the amphitheater – where the saving of souls was more fruitful – Gabe filed suit against the City in federal court under 42 USC § 1983, a statute letting folks sue state or local governments and their employees for depriving private citizens of their civil rights. Gabe alleged that the city ordinance violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by consigning him and other speakers to the amphitheater’s protest area. The complaint sought a declaration that the ordinance infringes the First Amendment and an injunction preventing city officials from enforcing the ordinance in the future.Gabe immediately ran into a 1994 decision, Heck v. Humphrey, in which the Supreme Court held that “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
Gabe had been convicted of violating the statute, the lower courts said, so he could not pursue a § 1983 action challenging its constitutionality.
Last week, the Supreme Court threw Gabe a lifeline. Gabe’s suit, SCOTUS held, only asked for “forward-looking relief—nothing to do with [his] prior conviction.” Therefore, the Court held, Heck v. Humphrey does not bar bars Gabe’s suit. Heck prohibits any challenge the validity of a prior conviction or sentence so as to obtain release from custody or monetary damages. That decision has no bearing on Gabe’s action seeking a purely prospective remedy.
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Case No. 24-993, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 1272 (March 20, 2026)
~ Thomas L. Root
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.