On April 15, the Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Gabriel Olivier, a Mississippi resident fighting to protect his constitutional rights after being prosecuted under a city ordinance that restricts free speech. The case, Olivier v. City of Brandon, raises critical questions about the ability of individuals to seek protection from unconstitutional laws under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even after facing prosecution.
The case stems from a 2021 incident in which Olivier, a devout Christian, was sharing his faith near a public amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi. The city’s police chief confronted him, citing a recently amended ordinance that required “protests” to occur in a designated area. When Olivier found the designated area remote and isolating, he returned to his original location and was subsequently charged with violating the ordinance. After pleading nolo contendere and paying a fine, Olivier sought to challenge the ordinance in court, arguing that it violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
However, both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals barred Olivier’s request for an injunction to prevent future enforcement of the ordinance, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Heck v. Humphrey. The Fifth Circuit’s decision deepened a circuit split on whether individuals who have been prosecuted under unconstitutional laws can seek prospective relief to protect their rights.
The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief argues that the Fifth Circuit misapplied Heck v. Humphrey, creating a dangerous precedent that could prevent individuals from challenging unconstitutional laws. The brief highlights how the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation creates a “Catch-22” for plaintiffs: if they challenge a law before being prosecuted, the government argues the threat of enforcement is too speculative; if they wait until after prosecution, courts like the Fifth Circuit claim it is too late.
“When someone challenges an unconstitutional law, the government does everything it can to stop them from getting their day in court,” said Jacob Huebert, President of the Liberty Justice Center. “The lower court’s decision here would make that even easier for the government by closing the courthouse doors to some of the people most affected by an unconstitutional law—those who have already been prosecuted for violating it. That’s wrong. We hope the Supreme Court agrees and hears this case.”
The Liberty Justice Center’s brief emphasizes that individuals who have already been prosecuted are uniquely positioned to demonstrate a credible threat of future enforcement, particularly when they intend to continue the same conduct. The brief urges the Supreme Court to grant Olivier’s petition for certiorari and clarify that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar lawsuits seeking prospective relief against unconstitutional laws.
The case also has broader implications for access to federal courts. The Fifth Circuit’s decision conflicts with rulings from other circuits, including the Ninth and Tenth, which have held that Heck does not apply to plaintiffs seeking prospective relief. If left uncorrected, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling could embolden government actors to exploit procedural barriers to avoid accountability for unconstitutional actions.
The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief in Olivier v. City of Brandon is available here.