The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major case challenging the power of local governments to restrict public expression, with oral arguments scheduled for Wednesday, December 3, 2025. The dispute centers on a Mississippi street evangelist who was arrested for sharing his faith and subsequently denied his day in federal court.
The outcome of Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi could redefine when and how any American can legally challenge a local law they believe violates their constitutional rights.
The case originates with Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical street preacher who regularly shared the Gospel outside the Brandon Amphitheater, a large public venue in Brandon, Mississippi. Olivier, who became a Christian after hearing a street evangelist, feels a “calling from God” to proselytize in public forums.
In 2019, the City of Brandon enacted an ordinance – reportedly in response to Olivier and other street preachers – that restricts public expression during event times. According to Decision Magazine, the ordinance forces anyone “engaging in public protests and/or demonstrations” to remain in a small, designated “protest zone.” This law is enforced three hours before and one hour after a ticketed event. The rules strictly prohibit the use of megaphones or loudspeakers if they are “clearly audible more than 100 feet” from the designated zone.
Olivier deliberately moved out of the remote protest zone to reach concert crowds, resulting in his arrest and a $304 fine and a suspended ten-day jail sentence.
The City of Brandon defends the ordinance by pointing to its responsibility for public safety and managing traffic and large crowds of over 8,500 people during events.
The Supreme Court is not currently focused on whether the Brandon ordinance itself violates the First Amendment. Instead, the justices must resolve a critical procedural question that has sharply divided circuit courts across the nation.
After being convicted and paying his fine, Olivier filed a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to strike down the ordinance and prevent future enforcement against him. However, the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed his suit.
The lower courts ruled that Olivier’s civil rights claim was barred by the Supreme Court’s 1994 precedent, Heck v. Humphrey. That case held that a prisoner cannot challenge a state conviction in federal civil court if winning the civil suit would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction.
Attorneys from First Liberty Institute, which represents Olivier, argue the lower courts misapplied Heck because: (1) Olivier was never incarcerated and was seeking only prospective relief (to prevent future arrests), not to overturn his past conviction or sentence; and (2) The Heck precedent specifically dealt with the rights of a prisoner, who has access to the separate process of federal habeas corpus relief—a process not available to Olivier since he was not “in custody.”
The lower court’s decision essentially told Olivier that because he was injured (fined), he could not sue to prevent future injury, effectively denying him his “day in court.”
This absurdity was highlighted by Judge James Ho in his Fifth Circuit dissent, who argued that Olivier’s prior conviction should make him a “perfect plaintiff” to challenge the ordinance, rather than a prohibited one.
The case’s significance is underscored by the broad coalition of organizations that have filed over 15 amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs in support of Olivier. This diverse group includes the United States Solicitor General (representing the federal government), conservative and libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute and Manhattan Institute, and organizations spanning different faiths, including the Christian Legal Society, Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.
As Nate Kellum, First Liberty Senior Counsel, stated, this case is about the fundamental right of every American to challenge local laws that restrict their constitutional freedoms. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine the procedural hurdles for all citizens seeking to stop the enforcement of potentially unconstitutional ordinances.
