Term: 2010
Docket: 09-751
Albert Snyder, Petitioner v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., Et Al.
- Pro
09-751 SNYDER V. PHELPS DECISION BELOW: 580 F.3d 206 CERT. GRANTED 3/8/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Fourth Circuit reversed a jury determination in favor of Albert Snyder ("Snyder") for the intentional harm perpetrated against him by Fred W. Phelps, Sr., Westboro Baptist Church, Incorporated, Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis and Shirley L. Phelps-Roper (collectively, "Phelps"). Snyder's claim arose out of Phelps' intentional acts at Snyder's son's funeral. Specifically the claims were: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (2) invasion of privacy and (3) civil conspiracy. These claims were dismissed by the Fourth Circuit notwithstanding that (a) Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell does not apply to private versus private individuals; (b) Snyder was a "captive" audience; (c) Phelps specifically targeted Snyder and his family; (d) Snyder proved that he was intentionally harmed by clear and convincing evidence;¹ and (e) Phelps disrupted Snyder's mourning process. The Fourth Circuit's decision gives no credence to Snyder's personal stake in honoring and mourning his son and ignores Snyder's right to bury his son with dignity and respect. Three questions are presented: 1. Does Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell apply to a private person versus another private person concerning a private matter? 2. Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech tenet trump the First Amendment's freedom of religion and peaceful assembly? 3. Does an individual attending a family member's funeral constitute a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication? ¹ Because Snyder sought punitive damages, he was required to prove his case by clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, Snyder was required to prove actual malice. Snyder carried his burden on both issues. ^ LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-1026
The U.S. Supreme Court case Albert Snyder v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al., 2010 revolved around the issue of free speech versus privacy rights at funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, was known for protesting military funerals with signs expressing anti-gay sentiments and other controversial messages as part of their religious beliefs that God is punishing America for its tolerance towards homosexuality. Albert Snyder sued the church after they protested his son's funeral - a Marine who died in Iraq - claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress among other charges. In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled in favor of Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church stating that while their actions were certainly hurtful and caused significant emotional distress to Snyder, they fell under protected speech as per First Amendment rights since they involved matters of public concern (the moral conduct of the United States and its citizens), were not threatening or provoking violence, occurred on public property and complied with local laws.
In the dissenting opinion for Albert Snyder v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al., Justice Samuel Alito argued that the First Amendment does not protect hurtful and outrageous speech targeted at private individuals on matters of private concern. He contended that while public discourse is essential in a democratic society, it should not be used as an excuse to inflict severe emotional harm upon certain members of our society under the guise of free speech rights. According to him, Westboro Baptist Church's picketing was a personal attack on Matthew Snyder rather than commentary on public issues; hence they were not entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment. The church intentionally exploited a private family’s grief for its own ideological ends which he believed crossed lines set by tort law and basic human decency.
