When a public amphitheater opened outside of Jackson, Miss. in 2018, it attracted popular musicians such as Kenny Chesney and Chris Stapleton who drew thousands of fans to the venue set in a 250-acre park.
The large crowds also brought out Gabriel Olivier, a street preacher who with church colleagues staked out a busy intersection with a bullhorn and banners featuring scripture and photos of aborted fetuses. They aggressively evangelized concertgoers, at times calling patrons “whores,” “Jezebels” and “sissies,” court records show.
Officials in the suburban city of Brandon, quickly restricted demonstrations outside the amphitheater, forcing protesters further from the facility. But the new city ordinance did not deter Mr. Olivier, a 33-year-old evangelical Christian. After he tested the law outside a 2021 show, he was arrested, convicted and ordered to pay a fine.
Mr. Olivier later sued, and the Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear his challenge to the ordinance that he says interfered with his religious rights. The constitutionality of the law is not before the court. Instead, the justices are being asked to decide whether individuals found guilty in criminal court can later file civil lawsuits challenging the validity of the statute under which they were convicted. Mr. Olivier did not initially raise questions about the ordinance at the time of his arrest.
The city’s lawyers, who are defending the statute, say that allowing such lawsuits implicitly impugns the validity of a conviction, which the court has previously said is generally not permitted. Local government officials from across the country have told the justices in court filings that a decision in Mr. Olivier’s favor could lead to a flood of costly lawsuits, putting at risk a wide range of local laws and ordinances.
In response, Mr. Olivier’s lawyers said in court papers that he was not seeking to undermine his prior conviction; he already paid his fine. Instead, they said that he should have an opportunity to argue the ordinance violates his rights and that it should not be enforced against him in the future.
“The federal courthouse doors shouldn’t be shut to Olivier simply because he’s been prosecuted for exercising his rights in the past,” his legal team told the Supreme Court. “If anything, his past prosecution confirms that the threat of future enforcement against him is real.”
He is represented by First Liberty Institute, the conservative legal organization behind several recent cases in which the justices have expanded religious rights. The group represented a high school football coach who prevailed at the court in 2022 after he was fired for praying at the 50-yard line after his team’s games.
In the Mississippi case, lower courts have sided with city officials, citing a 1994 Supreme Court decision that bars litigation that would call into question a conviction that has not been overturned. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to let Mr. Olivier sue, but the court divided 9 to 8.
Mr. Olivier’s position is backed in part by the Trump administration, which has argued his type of forward-looking lawsuit should not be barred by the 1994 decision.
Even if Mr. Olivier wins the right to challenge the ordinance, he could still lose. Federal courts rejected a similar request to block the ordinance from one of his fellow protesters who was not arrested. In 2016, the Supreme Court left in place an appeals court ruling that prohibits protests on the marble plaza in front of the courthouse, noting the restrictions do not target specific viewpoints but apply to all.
For his part, Mr. Olivier says he wants only to test the constitutionality of the law in hopes of returning as soon as possible to sharing his Christian faith from a spot closer to the crowds entering the amphitheater.
“We look for places where we know crowds are going to be, where we are able to speak aloud the gospel, to get out a lot of literature about Christ,” said Mr. Olivier, who is one of three pastors at his church and the owner of a landscaping business.
When the Brandon Amphitheater opened in 2018, Mr. Olivier, his colleagues, wife and eldest children often demonstrated at the main intersection where concertgoers entered the venue.
Their interactions, according to court records, at times led to confrontations with patrons that required the police to intervene.
“Sometimes confrontational evangelism is necessary,” Mr. Olivier said in a recent interview. “Sometimes there’s going to be difficult, hard conversations about the reality of sin in our world.”
He said he has matured since then and that “the Lord has done work on me about teaching me how to conduct myself better when doing evangelism, how to speak to people in a more becoming way.”
The year after the amphitheater opened, the Brandon City Council passed an ordinance establishing a designated area for demonstrations about 265 feet away from Mr. Olivier’s preferred location. The statute banned the use of loudspeakers and free-standing signs. Restrictions applied “regardless of the content and/or expression” of the protest.
Mr. Olivier believes the measure was passed in response to his group’s tactics. The city said it imposed new rules because of safety concerns related to pedestrians and traffic from any demonstration.
In May 2021, as the country music singer Lee Brice headlined a show, Mr. Olivier showed up to demonstrate, prepared for the possibility of an encounter with the police.
The local police chief, William Thompson, handed Mr. Olivier a copy of the city’s ordinance and directed his group to the demonstration area. Mr. Olivier said he checked out the spot but said he felt like it was so far from foot traffic that no one could hear his message. Instead, he returned to the venue’s busiest intersection, where demonstrations were now prohibited, to preach there.
After a warning, Mr. Olivier was arrested and charged with violating the rules. He pleaded no contest, received a suspended sentence of 10 days in jail and paid a fine of about $350, he said.
A few months later and after consulting with a lawyer, Mr. Olivier sued the city, claiming the ordinance violates his First Amendment rights, preventing him from fulfilling his religious conviction to share the gospel. He sought monetary damages and to block the city from enforcing the ordinance.
Todd Butler, the lawyer representing Brandon officials, said in an email the city “values and supports religious expression.” The case, he said, is about “whether a person who has been found guilty in criminal court may undermine his conviction.” Because of its potential impact on other cities, Mr. Butler said, added that the case’s importance “cannot be overstated.”
Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Times from Washington.
The post Supreme Court Considers Whether Street Preacher Can Sue to Be Heard appeared first on New York Times.
