The Liberty Justice Center has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Gabriel Olivier, a resident of Mississippi, in his legal battle against a city ordinance that limits free speech. The case, Olivier v. City of Brandon, deals with the possibilities individuals have under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to contest unconstitutional laws after being prosecuted.
The issue originated in 2021 when Olivier practiced his religion close to a public amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi. The police chief intervened, referencing an ordinance amendment mandating that protests occur in a specific zone. Olivier found the designated area unsuitable and returned to his original location, leading to charges under the ordinance. After paying a fine post-pleading nolo contendere, Olivier contested the ordinance, asserting it breached his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
However, attempts by Olivier to secure an injunction were denied by both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, referring to the Supreme Court's precedent in Heck v. Humphrey. This decision further complicated a legal inconsistency concerning whether individuals who have faced prosecution can seek forward-looking relief to defend their rights.
The Liberty Justice Center, in its brief, contends that the Fifth Circuit mistakenly applied Heck v. Humphrey, establishing a hazardous precedent that could stop individuals from opposing unconstitutional laws. According to the brief, the Fifth Circuit's ruling creates a predicament for plaintiffs, where challenging a law before prosecution is deemed speculative, yet any challenge post-prosecution is considered untimely.
Jacob Huebert, President of the Liberty Justice Center, remarked, "When someone challenges an unconstitutional law, the government does everything it can to stop them from getting their day in court. The lower court’s decision here would make that even easier for the government by closing the courthouse doors to some of the people most affected by an unconstitutional law—those who have already been prosecuted for violating it. That’s wrong. We hope the Supreme Court agrees and hears this case."
The brief highlights that individuals, like Olivier, who have been prosecuted, can notably establish a credible threat of recurring enforcement, especially if they plan to persist in similar actions. The Center requests that the Supreme Court approve Olivier’s certiorari petition and assert that Heck v. Humphrey doesn't prevent lawsuits seeking future relief against unconstitutional laws.
The decision by the Fifth Circuit holds wider impacts on federal court accessibility, being contrary to verdicts from the Ninth and Tenth circuits, which determined that Heck is not relevant to plaintiffs aiming for prospective relief. The Liberty Justice Center argues that the Fifth Circuit’s decision might allow governments to evade responsibility for unconstitutional behavior if it remains unchanged.