The justices will determine if a local ordinance forcing protesters to stand so far away from a public event that their message cannot even be heard is a form of government censorship and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a Mississippi Christian’s arrest for sharing the Gospel near a public amphitheater violated his First Amendment rights.
In a brief order issued earlier this month, the High Court announced it would take up the case of Gabriel Olivier v. Brandon, Mississippi, et al., a case centered on the city’s enforcement of protest restrictions near the Brandon Amphitheater, a venue with a seating capacity of over 8,500 that regularly hosts ticketed events.
At issue is Brandon’s Ordinance § 50-45, which restricts protests and demonstrations near the amphitheater from three hours before an event begins until one hour after it ends. The ordinance also limits protestors to a designated “protest area” and imposes restrictions on signage, sound amplification, and movement. Protesters are also required to carry photo identification and ensure that a group representative is present at all times.
Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who publicly shares the Gospel in hopes of having peaceful conversations about his faith with as many people as possible. First Liberty Institute, which is representing Olivier alongside law firm Gibson Dunn, praised the justices’ decision to take the case.
“Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty, in a statement. “Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.”
According to court documents, the ordinance was implemented following repeated demonstrations by Olivier and others, who were accused of using inflammatory religious language outside the amphitheater during events. Olivier contends that the city’s designated protest zone was too far removed from event attendees to allow his message to be heard, prompting him to move closer, which ultimately resulted in his arrest.
After paying a fine, Olivier filed a lawsuit challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality. A district court dismissed the suit, and a three-judge panel for the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The full appeals court later declined to rehear the case.
However, Judge James Ho dissented from the Fifth Circuit’s majority, writing,
“It sends an odd message to citizens who care about defending their constitutional rights. 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.”
First Liberty contends that the lower courts dismissed the case without seriously examining its constitutional merits. In particular, they criticized the courts’ reliance on precedent that prevents individuals convicted of crimes from suing police officers and other officials.
Olivier and his legal team argue that the ordinance suppresses free speech by relegating dissenters to a space too distant from the public to effectively communicate their message. The ordinance prohibits vehicles, raised platforms, and loudspeakers that can be heard from more than 100 feet away. Temporary signs must be handheld, made of soft material, unattached to any fixed objects within the protest area.
The city has defended the ordinance as a necessary measure to ensure public safety and crowd control. City officials argue that the restrictions are content-neutral and apply to all groups equally.
In a related ruling in December, a Fifth Circuit panel rejected a separate challenge to the ordinance brought by Spring Siders, an associate of Olivier. Judge Jacques L. Wiener Jr., writing for a unanimous panel, said the city’s enforcement of the rules was likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
“Brandon’s application of § 50-45 to Siders is narrowly tailored to its interest in public safety and traffic control,” Wiener wrote. “Although Siders has the burden of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits, this requires Brandon to defend the constitutionality of its actions. It has done so.”
Despite those rulings, the Supreme Court will now determine whether cities can restrict speech around government-run venues during large gatherings and to what extent such regulations can be applied without violating the First Amendment.
Oral arguments are expected this fall during the Court’s next term, with a ruling likely by the summer.
Olivier’s actions reflect the legacy of John Bunyan, the 17th-century preacher who stood firm in his calling to proclaim Christ, even under pressure from civil authorities. Though he could have secured his freedom by staying silent, Bunyan refused, saying, “If I am freed today, I will preach tomorrow.” In the same spirit, Olivier chose faithfulness over ease.
Olivier isn’t being told that he can’t proclaim the Gospel but by being kept so far from those he wants to share it with, the effect is the same: government censorship.
As Christians we are called to obey the law — unless it conflicts with God’s law (Romans 13). In this case, Olivier followed the law by accepting the consequences and paying the fine. But he refused to accept it as just. Instead, he chose to stand up, not just for himself, but for the God-given right of all Christians to speak biblical truth publicly and clearly.
In proclaiming the truth, Christians must speak with grace and clarity (Colossians 4:6). Public preaching, even when confronting sin, should be marked by truth and love. But love does not mean silence and truth does not mean comfort.
Christian evangelists like Olivier depend on First Amendment freedoms to publicly share their faith. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear his case is critical. It could restore his right to pursue a legal remedy and reaffirm protections for religious speech in public spaces. For Christians, this case addresses the vital principle that peacefully sharing the Gospel in public is a constitutional right, not an optional privilege.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
