Snyder v. Phelps

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".[1]

Snyder v. Phelps
Argued October 6, 2010
Decided March 2, 2011
Full case nameAlbert Snyder v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr.; Westboro Baptist Church, Incorporated; Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis; Shirley L. Phelps-Roper
Docket no.09-751
Citations562 U.S. 443 (more)
131 S. Ct. 1207; 179 L. Ed. 2d 172; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1903; 79 U.S.L.W. 4135; 39 Media L. Rep. 1353; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 836
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorJudgment for the plaintiff, 533 F. Supp. 2d 567 (D. Md. 2008); reversed, 580 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 559 U.S. 990 (2010).
Holding
Speech on a matter of public concern, in a public place, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress. Fourth Circuit affirmed, trial court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceBreyer
DissentAlito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

The case brought up the issue of whether or not the First Amendment protected public protestors at a funeral against claims of emotional distress, better known as tort liability. It involved a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, claimed by Albert Snyder, a man[2] whose son Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine, was killed during the Iraq War. The claim was made in response to the actions of the Phelps family as well as the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) who were also present at the picketing of the funeral. The Court ruled in favor of Phelps in an 8–1 decision, determining that their speech related to a public issue was completely protected, and could not be prevented as it was on public property.

Background

Incident

On March 3, 2006, U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder was killed in a non-combat-related vehicle accident in Iraq.[3][4] On March 10, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) picketed Snyder's funeral in Westminster, Maryland, as it had done at thousands of other funerals throughout the U.S. in protest of what they considered an increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the United States. Picketers displayed placards such as "America is doomed", "You're going to hell", "God hates you", "Fag troops", "Semper fi fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers".[5] Members of the Patriot Guard Riders, a group of motorcyclists who separate WBC protesters from those who attend military funerals, were present in support of the Snyder family.[6] WBC published statements on its website that denounced Albert Snyder and his ex-wife for raising their son Catholic, stating they "taught Matthew to defy his creator", "raised him for the devil", and "taught him that God was a liar".[7]

District Court of Maryland

Albert Snyder, Matthew Snyder's father, sued Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church and two of Phelps's daughters, Rebekah Phelps-Davis and Shirley Phelps-Roper, for defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.[7] The claim of defamation arising from comments posted about Snyder on the WBC website was dismissed, on the grounds that the contents were "essentially Phelps-Roper's religious opinion and would not realistically tend to expose the Plaintiff to public hatred or scorn".[8] The claim of publicity given to private life was similarly dismissed since no private information was made public by the Defendants: they learned that Snyder was divorced and his son was Catholic from his son's newspaper obituary. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining three counts.[8]

The facts of the case were essentially undisputed at trial. Albert Snyder testified:

"They turned this funeral into a media circus and they wanted to hurt my family. They wanted their message heard and they didn't care who they stepped over. My son should have been buried with dignity, not with a bunch of clowns outside".[9]

Snyder described his emotional injuries, including becoming tearful, angry, and physically nauseated to the point that he would vomit. He stated that the Defendants had placed a "bug" in his head, so that he was unable to think of his son without thinking of their actions, adding, "I want so badly to remember all the good stuff and so far, I remember the good stuff, but it always turns into the bad".[10] Snyder called several expert witnesses who testified that worsening of his diabetes and severe depression had resulted from the Defendants' activities.[11]

In their defense, WBC established that they had complied with all local ordinances and had obeyed police instructions. The picket was held in a location cordoned off by the police, approximately 1000 feet (300 m) from the church, from which it could be neither seen nor heard. Mr. Snyder testified that, although he glimpsed the tops of the signs from the funeral procession, he did not see their content until he watched a news program on television later that day. He also indicated that he had found the WBC's statements about his son on their webpage from a Google search.[10]

In his instructions to the jury, Judge Richard D. Bennett for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland stated that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements, and that the jury must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection".[10][12][13] WBC unsuccessfully sought a mistrial based on alleged prejudicial statements made by the judge and violations of the gag order by the plaintiff's attorney. An appeal was also sought by the WBC.[14]

On October 31, 2007, the jury found for the Plaintiff and awarded Snyder $2,900,000 in compensatory damages, later adding a decision to award $6,000,000 in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and an additional $2,000,000 for causing emotional distress (a total of US$10,900,000 (equivalent to $13,440,010 in 2019)). The Phelpses said that despite the verdict, the church would continue to picket military funerals.[15] On February 4, 2008, Bennett upheld the verdict but reduced the punitive damages from $8 million to $2.1 million, to take into consideration the resources of WBC. The total judgment then stood at US$5,000,000 (equivalent to $5,958,585 in 2019). Court liens were ordered on church buildings and Phelps' law office in an attempt to ensure that the damages were paid.[16]

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

An appeal by WBC was heard on September 24, 2009. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and set aside the lower court's $5 million judgment. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the lower court had erred by instructing the jury to decide a question of law rather than fact (specifically, whether or not the speech in question was protected by the First Amendment). It also ruled that the protest signs and language on WBC's website were rhetorical hyperbole and figurative expression, rather than assertions of fact, so they were a form of protected speech.[10][17] On March 30, 2010, the Court further ordered Albert Snyder to pay the court costs for the defendants, an amount totaling $16,510. People all over the country, including political commentator Bill O'Reilly agreed to cover the costs, pending appeal. O'Reilly also pledged to support all of Snyder's future court costs against the Phelps family.[18]

Final appeal

A writ of certiorari was filed on March 8, 2010.[19] Arguments were heard beginning on October 13, represented by three of Phelps' daughters, including Margie Phelps.[20][21]

Issues

The questions presented were as follows:[19]

  1. Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter;
  2. Whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly.
  3. Whether an individual attending a family member's funeral constitutes a "captive audience" who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

Briefs

Several news and civil rights organizations filed amicus briefs in support of Phelps, including the American Civil Liberties Union,[22] the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and twenty-one other media organizations, including National Public Radio, Bloomberg L.P., the Associated Press, the Newspaper Association of America, and others.[23]

Other briefs were filed in favor of Snyder, including one by Senate Majority and Minority Leaders Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, and forty other members of the United States Senate,[24] a number of veterans groups, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars[25] and the American Legion,[26] the John Marshall Veterans Legal Support Center and Clinic,[27] and another by Kansas which was joined by District of Columbia and every other State except Delaware and Maine.[28]

Ruling
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

In an 8–1 decision (with the justices ruling the same way as they did in United States v. Stevens in 2010), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps, upholding the Fourth Circuit's decision. Chief Justice John Roberts (as in the Stevens case) wrote the majority opinion stating "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."[29]

The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."[30] The decision also declined to expand the "captive audience doctrine", saying that Snyder was not in a state where he was coerced to hear the negative speech.[31]

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion, emphasizing his view that the decision related only to picketing, and did not take into consideration Westboro Baptist Church's on-line publications that attacked the Snyder family.[32]

Alito's dissent

Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenting justice in this case, beginning his dissent with, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."[29] He sternly criticized the Church's conduct writing:

[Westboro did not] dispute that their speech was “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Instead, they maintained that the First Amendment gave them a license to engage in such conduct. They are wrong.

He concluded, "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."[31]

In a July 2011 speech, Justice Ginsburg called Alito's dissent "heart-felt" and said that it "underscored the incomparable distress suffered by the Snyder family," noting that "although no member of the Court joined him, his opinion aligned with the views of many Court-watchers, including one of the nation's newest—retired Justice Stevens, [who] recently told the Federal Bar Council he 'would have joined [Justice Alito's] powerful dissent'."[33] (Justice John Paul Stevens had retired in 2010.)

gollark: Or, well, ircd-exporter might but that would make the number *bigger*.
gollark: Or, well, neither thing sees them.
gollark: We don't appear to have any of those.
gollark: Weird, ircd-exporter sees 13 channels but osmarksircthing™ sees 14.
gollark: Sort of. It's kind of minimal.

See also

References
  1. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).  This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.
  2. "He Looked Hate in the Eye".
  3.  This article incorporates public domain material from the U.S. Department of Defense document: "Two Marines Killed in Iraq; Previous Casualties Identified". archive.defense.gov (Press release). U.S. Dept. of Defense. 2006-03-06. Retrieved 2017-10-26.
  4. Canty, Michele (November 25, 2007). "Military Report Details Crash". York Daily Record. York, Pennsylvania. Archived from the original on 2013-09-06. Retrieved 2013-05-27.
  5. "Snyder v. Phelps". Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved 2013-05-27.
  6. Bates, Theunis (March 2, 2011). "One Family's Fight Against the Westboro Baptist Church". AOL.com. Archived from the original on 2013-05-15. Retrieved 2013-05-27.
  7. Snyder v. Phelps, No. 1:06-cv-01389 (D. Md. Jun. 5, 2006).
  8. Snyder v. Phelps, 533 F. Supp. 2d 567 (D. Md. 2008).
  9. Marso, Andy (2011-03-02). "Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Gay Church's Protest Rights in Md. Case". Capital News Service. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  10. Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2009).  This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.
  11. Simmons, Melody (2007-10-27). "Marine's Father Sues Church for Cheering Son's Death". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  12. See also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, a case where certain personal slurs and obscene utterances by an individual were found unworthy of First Amendment protection, due to the potential for violence resulting from their utterance.
  13. Donaldson-Evans, Catherine (2007-10-26). "Father of Marine Killed in Iraq Sues Church for Cheering Death, Appeals to Public Online for Help". Fox News. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  14. "$11M Damage Award for Picketing Funeral". The Seattle Times. 2007-11-01. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  15. Dominguez, Alex (2007-11-01). "Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case". USA Today. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  16. Hall, Mike (2008-04-04). "Walls Close in on Phelpses". The Topeka Capital-Journal. Archived from the original on 2013-05-02. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  17. "Court Says GI Funeral Protests Legal". Baltimore Sun. Military.com. 2009-09-25. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  18. "Fallen Marine's Dad Gets O'Reilly Backing". CBS News. 2010-10-10. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  19. "09-751 Snyder V. Phelps" (PDF). Supreme Court. 2010-03-08. Retrieved 2010-10-17.  This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.
  20. Liptak, Adam (2010-10-06). "Justices Take Up Funeral-Protest Case". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  21. Sulzberger, A.J. (2010-10-09). "In Topeka, the Price of Free Speech". The Topeka Capital-Journal. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  22. Shapiro, Steven R.; Deborah A. Jeon; Joel Kleinman (2010-07-14). "Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  23. Burke, Thomas R.; Bruce E.H. Johnson; Robert Corn-Revere. "Brief Amici Curiae of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Twenty-one News Media Organizations in Support of Respondent" (PDF). Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  24. Dellinger, Walter; Jonathan D. Hacker; Justin Florence; et al. (2010-05-28). "Brief for Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell and 40 Other Members of the U.S. Senate as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Retrieved 2010-10-09.
  25. Maher, Lawrence M.; Timothy J. Nieman; Dean H. Dusinberre (2010-05-28). "Brief for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Retrieved 2010-10-09.
  26. Corberly, Linda T.; Paul Onderdonk; Gene C. Schaefr; et al. (June 2010). "Brief for the American Legion as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). The American Legion. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  27. Larson, Paul; Michael Seng; Joseph Butler; et al. "Brief for the John Marshall Law School Veterans Legal Support Center & Clinic and the Chicago School of Professional Psychology as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  28. Six, Steven; Stephen R. McAllister; Kristafer R. Ailslieger (June 2010). "Brief for the State of Kansas and 47 Other States and the District of Columbia as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). State of Kansas. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  29. Geidner, Chris (2011-03-02). "Supreme Court Upholds Westboro Baptist Church Members' Right to Picket Funerals". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on 2013-02-08. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  30. Mears, Bill (2011-03-02). "Anti-gay church's right to protest at military funerals is upheld". CNN.com. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  31. Gregory, Sean (2011-03-03). "Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Westboro". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2013-08-28.
  32. Barnes, Robert (2011-03-03). "Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Protects Church's Right to Picket Funerals". Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
  33. Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (2011-07-22). "A Survey of the 2010 Term for presentation to the Otsego County Bar Association Cooperstown Country Club". United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 2013-05-28.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.