In a unanimous decision written by Justice Kagan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a street preacher’s challenge to a city ordinance limiting protests and demonstrations around the city’s amphitheater to a designated area when events are scheduled at the amphitheater can move ahead.
The Court found that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which bars people convicted of a crime from using civil lawsuits to effectively undermine their convictions, did not apply to Mr. Olivier:
Olivier is not challenging the “validity of [his] conviction or sentence,” for the purpose of securing release or obtaining monetary damages. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167-168. Instead, he seeks “wholly prospective” relief—“only to be free from prosecutions for future violations” of the ordinance. Wooley, 430 U. S., at 711. Because Olivier’s suit does not, as habeas suits do, “collateral[ly] attack” the old conviction, it cannot give rise to “parallel litigation” respecting his prior conduct, and does not risk “conflicting” judgments over how that conduct was prosecuted or punished.
The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In other words, Mr. Olivier’s suit challenging the constitutionality of the city ordinance can go forward.
The Center for Law & Religious Freedom had previously filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to allow Mr. Olivier’s case to go forward because the lower court decisions infringed on Mr. Olivier’s First Amendment rights.
