Evangelists arrested for not staying in designated protest areas say their religious rights have been violated. The city claims the group’s loud insults and large signs were too disruptive.
Supreme Court hears Rastafarian prisoners’ rights violation lawsuit
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether prison officials can be sued for violating an inmate’s religious rights after forcibly shaving an inmate’s dreadlocks.
Unbranded – Newsworthy
WASHINGTON – Thousands of concertgoers gather at the city’s amphitheater outside Jackson, Mississippi. Evangelical Christians like Gabriel Olivier also frequently visit the venue to share their faith.
But officials in Brandon, Mississippi, said the messages spread by Olivier and others in her group, including shouting insults like “whore” and “Jezebel” over a bullhorn and holding up a large sign of an aborted fetus, were too destructive.
The Supreme Court will consider on December 3 whether Olivier, who was arrested for refusing to remain within the city’s designated area for protests and demonstrations, can sue the city for restricting his free exercise of religion.
Is this case about religious freedom?
Mr. Olivier hopes to sway a conservative court that has been largely sympathetic to allegations of burdens on religious rights. He argues that the First Amendment’s religious freedom guarantees are meaningless if city regulations cannot be challenged.
City officials countered that the rule was not specific to religious activities and that Mr. Olivier was unfairly attempting to go to federal court, even though he did not contest his city ordinance violation conviction in state court.
If the Supreme Court allows Mr. Olivier’s challenge to proceed, they argue, it would pave the way for people accused of crimes to plead guilty to avoid prison time and then be allowed to reverse and sue.
“Olivier wants this case to be about religious freedom,” the city’s attorney said in a written filing. “it’s not.”
Street preacher denied designated protest area
But there is no dispute as to what led to this challenge.
Mr. Olivier’s group preferred to preach at major intersections in the amphitheater, but city officials said it made it difficult for traffic officers to hear radio traffic. Concert-goers walked through the streets to avoid proselytizing and police had to leave their posts to prevent fights from breaking out, city officials said.
In 2021, Olivier and other members of his group ventured out to the amphitheater for a country music concert night after the city of Brandon approved new restrictions on where demonstrations could be held.
Olivier, who was given a copy of the rules, confirmed the designated protest area, but refused.
“He quickly surmised that what he wanted to do was completely unachievable because it would have cut off his message from his intended audience,” Nathan Kellam, a lawyer at First Liberty Institute who is representing Olivier, said during a virtual discussion of the case hosted by the Federalist Society. “And that seemed to be the whole idea behind this law in the first place.”
Olivier is arrested because he refuses to follow the rules.
He was fined $304, sentenced to 10 days in jail and suspended for one year.
Rather than contest his conviction, Olivier sued the city using federal civil rights law, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated.
Lower courts ruled against street preachers
A federal district judge dismissed the lawsuit. The ruling was upheld by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which cited a 1994 Supreme Court ruling that says convicted criminals seeking damages after an unconstitutional conviction must exhaust state court remedies before filing a federal lawsuit.
Olivier insists his situation is different because he just wants to drop his claim for damages and prevent city rules from being used to restrict his actions in the future.
The Justice Department is conducting a review on his behalf, as are several religious groups, including the Hare Krishna movement.
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness said groups like theirs that “have to propagate or practice religious beliefs in public” would most likely have to challenge restrictions similar to Brandon’s, but faced a no-win situation because they would most likely already have been charged with violating the restrictions.
Another member of Olivier’s group, who was not arrested, also challenged Brandon’s rules in a separate lawsuit.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last year rejected an attempt to block the rule, saying it was not intended for religious speech but was limited to protecting public safety and regulating traffic.
