Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 3 Jul 2025

1. Gabriel Olivier is a Christian who feels called to share the gospel with his fellow citizens. After being arrested and fined for violating an ordinance targeting "protests" outside a public amphitheater, Olivier brought a § 1983 suit under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement against him in the future. The Fifth Circuit, applying its precedent construing this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), held that Olivier's prior conviction barred his § 1983 suit because even the prospective relief it seeks would necessarily undermine his prior conviction. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged the "friction" between its decision and those of this Court and other circuits. Over vigorous dissents, the Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote. The questions presented are:
2. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit holds in conflict with the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional.
3. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit and at least four others hold in conflict with five other circuits, Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

A street preacher challenged a Brandon, Mississippi ordinance that confined protests and demonstrations near an amphitheater to a designated protest area. After he had already been convicted and fined for violating the ordinance, he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief: a declaration that the ordinance violates the First Amendment and an injunction against future enforcement. The Court held that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar that kind of suit. Justice Kagan wrote that Heck applies to suits that function as collateral attacks on a prior conviction or sentence, especially damages actions, but Olivier sought only to stop future prosecutions. Because his claim was wholly forward-looking and did not seek to overturn his conviction or recover damages, it fell outside Heck’s concern with collateral attacks and conflicting judgments. The Court reversed and remanded.