by Jorge Gomez • 3 minutes
Imagine being a citizen in America, someone who’s passionate about sharing your faith with others. You know that under the U.S. Constitution you have a right to express your religious views and to peacefully talk to others about your beliefs.
But the city you live in won’t let you share those beliefs with people at public events. It goes so far as to pass a law that stops you from freely talking to others about your faith, even in public parks. You can’t even wear a T-shirt with a religious message. You’re sent to a “designated area” far away from the people you’re hoping to reach.
So, knowing that your rights have been violated, you try going to court to challenge the city’s unlawful censorship of your religious speech. But the judge refuses to even grant you a day in court to plead your case.
Sound too far-fetched? It’s actually a true story—one that took place right here in America.
It’s what happened to First Liberty’s client, Gabriel Olivier. And that’s why today First Liberty is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Gabriel’s case. We argue that Americans who have had their religious freedom and First Amendment rights violated should be able to have their day in court.
Here’s how this case worked its way to the highest court in the country.
Gabriel is an evangelical Christian who wants to share his faith with others. Standing outside of well-attended events, Gabriel shares the Gospel, hoping to have peaceful conversations and reach as many people as possible.
But the City of Brandon, Mississippi issued an unconstitutional ordinance that bans Gabriel from communicating his religious beliefs to others in a city park.
The city prohibits Gabriel by law from engaging in religious speech. Whether it’s through one-on-one conversation, signs, literature or expressive clothing, it makes no difference—he can’t express his faith on city-owned sidewalks and grassy areas in the park. Instead, he’s forced to go to a remote “protest” area where his message can’t be heard or seen.
Dissatisfied with the “protest” area, Gabriel tried to speak in the park where he could reach people. It wasn’t long before the police arrested him. Gabriel paid the fine for violating the ordinance.
But wanting to go back and share his message, Gabriel subsequently challenged the local ordinance in federal court. The district court dismissed his constitutional claim, without even considering the merits of it. The lower court did so by relying on a peculiar Supreme Court case, Heck v. Humphrey. That ruling held that a prisoner could not bring a constitutional claim—but Gabriel was never a prisoner. He simply paid a fine!
In other words, Gabriel was effectively denied his day in court.
Gabriel went to a federal appeals court, asking for a review of his case by a full panel of judges on the 5th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals. But in November, the court declined to hear the case.
Several judges filed a dissent pointing out that relying on the Heck precedent “defies common sense” and “gets things entirely backwards.”
“It sends an odd message to citizens who care about defending their constitutional rights,” wrote Judge James C. Ho. “On the one hand, we tell citizens that you can’t sue if you’re not injured. But on the other hand, we tell them that you can’t sue if you are injured….Citizens like Olivier deserve their day in court.”
With this powerful dissent in hand, First Liberty is urging the nation’s highest court to hear Gabriel’s case and clarify that any American who has suffered a constitutional violation has a right to have his day in court.
The ordinance passed by the City of Brandon is undeniably unconstitutional as it deprives our client of his free speech rights. Religious speech in a public place is heavily guarded by the First Amendment, which clearly grants all Americans the right to express their point of view, religious or secular, perhaps no more so than on a public sidewalk. Talking about your faith to people in a public park should never be prohibited. And no American should face criminal charges for doing so.
Religious liberty is meaningless if Americans can’t go to court to seek relief when their rights are violated. If you can’t challenge a violation of your rights or even plead your case in court, are you truly and fully free to exercise your religion?
Gabriel’s case presents a tremendous opportunity to strengthen protections for religious liberty, free speech and due process, all of which are foundational to our constitutional and legal systems.
The stakes in this case couldn’t be any higher. The legal issues impact the civil rights of millions of Americans, virtually every person in the country. The outcome could help make sure that anyone whose civil rights are violated can bring their case before a court.
 |
|
|
