The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that a street preacher could sue over a city law that stopped him from exercising his free speech rights. The case, Olivier v. City of Brandon, concerned Gabriel Olivier, a man who often preached publicly outside an amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi.
In 2019, Olivier was not allowed to talk outside the theater or use signs or speakers during live events. Olivier was arrested in 2021 for breaking the town’s law that limited where he could speak in public. Later, he sued, saying the city had violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
Olivier didn’t go to court over the $350 fine he got. Instead, he sued to make sure that the city law wouldn’t stop him or someone else like him from preaching outside the theater.
“Assuming a credible threat of prosecution, a plaintiff can bring an action to challenge a local law as violating the Constitution and to prevent that law’s future enforcement,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
Heck v. Humphrey set a precedent that said a person can’t sue to overturn a previous conviction. This case challenged that precedent.
Kagan said that a lawsuit asking for future help with an activity, like Olivier exercising his First Amendment rights, was valid under the court’s rules. She said it was like a prisoner asking for a fairer trial in the future.
“Olivier’s suit merely attempts to prevent a future prosecution, so the Heck bar does not come into play,” Kagan wrote.
“There is no looking back in Olivier’s suit; both in the allegations made, and in the relief sought, the suit is entirely future oriented – even if success in it shows that something past should not have occurred,” Kagan continued. “His suit to enjoin the ordinance, so he can return to the amphitheater, may proceed.”
The Supreme Court has been busy this week.
One of the Supreme Court’s most liberal justices sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in a deportation case.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied a request from four Mexican nationals who asked the court to block their deportation orders so they could file an appeal.
“The petitioners, Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, and their two sons, were ordered to report to immigration officials on Thursday. Their legal team argued they face cartel violence if returned to Mexico,” the report said.
“According to their court filing, the family fled Guerrero, Mexico, in 2021, after being threatened by the Los Rojos drug cartel. The petition stated that cartel members demanded the family vacate their home within 24 hours or be killed,” it said.
The family also shared details of violence against other family members in their appeal, which was denied by an immigration judge.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision in November 2023, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals validated the decision in February 2025.
“Petitioners face imminent removal and have been directed to report to immigration office on 4/17/2025, despite credible and detailed testimony and documentary evidence showing they are targets of cartel violence due to their family ties and refusal to comply with extortion demands,” LeRoy George, an attorney for the migrants, said in a petition to the court.
Kagan could have acted alone to keep the migrants in the United States or referred the case to the entire Supreme Court, choosing the former in denying the appeal without comment.
An expert legal analyst for Fox News said during a morning show segment that she believes the federal judge at the center of a case involving a deported MS-13 gang member was “embarrassed” by a Supreme Court ruling taking the case out of his hands.