Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
Justia · Docket · oyez.org
Argued on Dec 3, 2025.
Petitioner: Gabriel Olivier.Respondent: City of Brandon, Mississippi, et al.
Advocates: Allyson N. Ho (for the Petitioner)
Ashley Robertson (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supportin...
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
Justia · Docket · oyez.org
Argued on Dec 3, 2025.
Petitioner: Gabriel Olivier.
Respondent: City of Brandon, Mississippi, et al.
Advocates:
- Allyson N. Ho (for the Petitioner)
- Ashley Robertson (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting vacatur)
- G. Todd Butler (for the Respondents)
Facts of the case (from oyez.org)
Gabriel Olivier was an evangelical Christian who regularly preached in public using signs and loudspeakers to convey religious messages. Between 2018 and 2019, he evangelized several times outside the Brandon Amphitheater, a city-owned venue in Brandon, Mississippi. In 2019, the city enacted an ordinance requiring protestors during live events to remain in a designated protest area, restricting use of loudspeakers and prohibiting non-handheld signs. In May 2021, Olivier returned to the Amphitheater during a concert to preach and was ordered by the police chief to move to the protest area. After briefly complying, Olivier returned to a more populated area, resulting in a citation for violating the ordinance. He pleaded no contest in municipal court, paid a fine, and did not appeal the conviction.
Olivier then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, seeking damages and an injunction to prevent future enforcement of the ordinance, arguing it violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court held that his claims were barred by the doctrine established in Heck v. Humphrey because success on them would necessarily imply the invalidity of his still-standing conviction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, modifying the dismissal to be with prejudice only until the conditions set by Heck were met.
Question
Does Heck v. Humphrey bar Section 1983 claims for purely prospective relief when the plaintiff has already been punished under the challenged law, and does that bar apply even if the plaintiff lacked access to federal habeas relief?