On The Front Lines

Supreme Court Reins In Government Argument Used to Shut Down Free Speech Challenges, Clears Path for Street Preacher Lawsuit to Proceed

WASHINGTON, DC —In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for a Mississippi street preacher to challenge a local law that restricted his ability to share his faith—making clear that Americans do not lose their right to challenge the future enforcement of unconstitutional laws simply because they were punished under those laws in the past.

In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of its prior ruling from Heck v. Humphrey, which has often been used by government officials to shut down constitutional challenges before they ever get heard. The decision removes a major obstacle not just for street preachers, but for anyone speaking out in public. Protesters, journalists, students, and everyday citizens who are convicted under questionable laws can still ask the courts to stop those laws from being used against them going forward.

The ruling comes as The Rutherford Institute is warning officials in South Padre Island, Texas, not to target street preachers during Spring Break through selective enforcement of local laws. For decades, The Rutherford Institute has defended the rights of individuals to speak freely in public spaces, standing firm on the principle that the government cannot pick and choose which messages are allowed.

“Street preachers today are the canaries in the coal mine for the First Amendment. If the government can silence them, it can silence anyone—protesters, dissidents, and anyone whose speech runs afoul of those in power,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “For too long, officials have imposed minor violations as an excuse to shut down speech and then argued that those same violations prevent any legal challenge. This ruling pushes back against that playbook and makes clear that the Constitution still applies.”

In a letter sent to the South Padre Island City Council, Rutherford Institute attorneys detail how city officials allegedly targeted street preachers for noise ordinance violations during Spring Break in 2025 while allowing nearby bars and beachgoers to blast louder music without consequence—an example of unconstitutional, viewpoint-based discrimination. According to the Institute’s letter, street preachers were warned or cited for using sound amplification, while others producing equal or greater noise in the exact same area were left alone, suggesting that enforcement was aimed at silencing a particular message rather than addressing noise levels. Rutherford attorneys argue that this kind of unequal treatment violates the First Amendment, runs afoul of basic due process protections, and infringes on religious freedom under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA). Warning that such actions expose the city to legal liability, the letter urges officials to ensure that the law is enforced fairly and not used as a tool to suppress protected speech.

The situation in South Padre Island highlights the very concerns at the heart of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Olivier. Although the Court’s ruling centered on access to the courts, its implications reach much further: the government cannot shield potentially unconstitutional laws from review simply by having punished people who violated them.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.