Related Articles
The arrest of a Mississippi street preacher outside a concert venue has led to a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome could shape how citizens challenge local laws they say infringe on constitutional rights.
Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical street preacher, argues that a Brandon, Mississippi, ordinance barring him from certain public property violated his religious liberty and freedom of speech. After lower courts prevented him from challenging the law, the Supreme Court agreed to take up a procedural question that could set an important precedent for future First Amendment disputes.
At the Brandon Amphitheater, where concerts routinely attract large crowds, Olivier says he sees an opportunity to share his faith. “I love to tell people about Jesus,” Olivier said.
He added that he comes to the venue to “hand out gospel tracts to people, tell them about the message of Christ as they are walking to the concert.”
***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters and download the CBN News app to ensure you receive the latest news from a Christian perspective.***
City officials said they received complaints that Olivier spoke too loudly and shouted insults at passersby. They enforced a local ordinance requiring him to stay inside a designated protest zone outside the amphitheater. When Olivier returned to the main walkway, he was cited and fined and received a suspended ten-day jail sentence.
Nate Kellum of First Liberty Institute, which represents Olivier, said the city misapplied its own rules.
“They refer to it as a protest and a demonstration. And of course, evangelism really doesn’t amount to those things,” Kellum said. “So by utilizing these vague terms. It really becomes a situation where the city removes and silences a speech that they don’t like.”
Olivier did not appeal his conviction. An appeal would have challenged only the punishment, not the ordinance itself. Instead, he filed a civil lawsuit aiming to stop Brandon from enforcing the law again. Lower courts dismissed the suit, ruling that he used a legal process meant only for people in custody. Because Olivier served no jail time, his attorneys said they had no other way to contest the ordinance.
“Religious liberty really is front and center of this issue. This guarantee is meaningless if we don’t have the opportunity to protect those rights in court,” Kellum said.
Brandon city officials disagree. In a statement, the city’s attorney, Todd Butler, defended the prior rulings:
“The petitioner was convicted under a municipal ordinance and elected not to utilize any of the mechanisms available under Mississippi law to challenge it. Instead, while on probation, he collaterally attacked his criminal judgment through a civil tort lawsuit that requested monetary damages and attorney’s fees, among other relief. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit rejected the petitioner’s subversion of state law.”
Free speech advocates say the case highlights a larger issue. They point to the use of designated protest zones to limit public expression and expand local governments’ authority to control speech on public property.
“If they can limit your free speech in a public park, then they have really taken away a fundamental right. It just becomes more and more restrictive,” said Jesse Morell of Open Air Outreach.
The Supreme Court will not determine whether Brandon’s ordinance violates the First Amendment. Instead, the justices will decide whether Olivier still has legal standing to sue after his conviction and whether individuals who are not incarcerated can challenge a law before it is enforced against them again.
A decision is expected later this term, and legal experts say the ruling could redefine when and how citizens can fight local laws they believe go too far.
Source link
