A federal appeals court previously rejected preacher Gabriel Olivier’s challenge to the Brandon, Mississippi, law.
The Supreme Court will consider an evangelist’s delayed challenge to a protest ordinance in a Mississippi city.
According to The Epoch Times, the court’s latest decision taken on July 3 in the case of Olivier v. City of Brandon took the form of an unsigned order. No justices dissented. The court did not explain its decision.
But the nation’s highest court decided to review whether the evangelist has a legal right to sue the city to block the ordinance.
The ordinance in question is the one in Brandon, Mississippi, which demands that three hours prior and an hour after a live event, protests and demonstrations close to the city’s amphitheater should be held solely in a designated area.
The regional law also prohibits the use of loudspeakers that are “clearly audible more than 100 feet” away from the designated area. The limitations pertain “regardless of the content and/or expression” of the demonstration or protest, according to the city’s brief.
The Times reported that petitioner, Gabriel Olivier, is a Christian who feels “called to share the gospel with his fellow citizens,” according to the petition he filed with the Supreme Court.
When Olivier “shares his faith, he hands out religious literature ‘expounding on the gospel message’ and ‘attempts to engage individuals in conversation or debate on various religious topics,’” the petition states.
On various instances in 2018 and 2019, Olivier participated in these actions at the amphitheater.
Brandon enacted the ordinance in 2019 and two years later Olivier went back to the amphitheater to share his faith, the petition said.
According to The Times, Brandon’s chief of police pointed him to the designated area but Olivier though that the area to be too far from the amphitheater for attendees to listen to his message, so he walked back to the sidewalk and shared his message there, according to the petition.
Olivier asked the Supreme Court to look at whether the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, which ruled against him, was consistent with prior decisions issued by the nation’s highest court.
The Fifth Circuit is the only federal circuit court that interprets Heck as barring Section 1983 claims that are aimed at preventing the future enforcement of laws that a plaintiff was previously found to have violated, the petition said.
“Even though judges in multiple dissenting opinions have criticized this understanding of Heck since the Fifth Circuit first adopted it, the Fifth Circuit refuses to change course,” the petition stated.
Your action is key to winning the next Presidential Election.
