Justices Wrestle With Precedent in Evangelical Protest Case

The US Supreme Court grappled with whether its own precedent bars an evangelical street preacher from bringing a federal civil rights challenge against a local protest ordinance under which he was convicted.

The case argued on Wednesday centered on the boundaries of Heck v. Humphrey, a 1994 decision that precludes defendants from seeking relief in federal court over allegedly unconstitutional convictions unless that conviction has been overturned.

Gabriel Olivier was arrested while proselytizing outside a Brandon, Mississippi, venue. After pleading no contest, he filed a Section 1983 claim in federal court to block future enforcement of the ordinance.

A district judge held the case was barred by Heck, and a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling.

Justices from across the court’s ideological spectrum repeatedly pressed Olivier’s attorney, Gibson Dunn partner Allyson Ho, on whether her position wouldn’t require them to abandon the court’s prior jurisprudence.

“In order for you to win, would it not be necessary for us to backtrack on a number of things we said in Heck?” Justice Samuel Alito said.

Alito’s concern put him at unusual odds with fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who focused his questions largely on whether Olivier’s suit would implicate his prior conviction. Thomas, the lone member of the Heck court still serving, said the decision was intended to prevent Section 1983 from being used to “smuggle” habeas claims into civil rights suits.

But Alito’s concerns were matched by several other justices, including Neil Gorsuch, who pointed to the broad and “unqualified” language Justice Antonin Scalia used in Heck, and liberal Justice Elena Kagan.

“The language, just read to mean what it means, puts you out of court,” Kagan told Ho.

The justices seemed unsatisfied with simply concluding the suit was closed off by Heck, however. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described as “quirky” the City of Brandon’s position that a fellow protester could bring the exact same suit that Olivier could not. And Alito, despite his previous concerns, asked if it wasn’t a “stretch” of Heck’s reasoning to say a conviction left a person forever barred from challenging the constitutionality of a law.

The US Solicitor General’s Office also argued on Olivier’s behalf, saying the court should allow civil rights suits seeking purely prospective relief even if the underlying conviction might be implicated as long as the plaintiff is no longer in custody.

The city was represented by G. Todd Butler, of Phelps Dunbar. Butler said Olivier had failed to take advantage of numerous avenues at the state level to challenge or expunge his conviction. He urged the justices to side with the Fifth Circuit and hold that Olivier’s suit was barred by his conviction.

The case is Gabriel Olivier v. City of Brandon, U.S., No. 24-993, argued on 12/3/25.