WHAT OLIVIER V. CITY OF BRANDON MEANS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PROTEST AND BUFFER-ZONE ORDINANCES
Eric Daigle, Esq. Daigle Law Group
May 2026
The Supreme Court recently decided Olivier v. City of Brandon, holding that a plaintiff with a prior conviction under a law may still bring a Section 1983 suit seeking purely prospective relief against that law, and that such a suit is not barred if the plaintiff lacked access to federal habeas relief.
Summary of Facts Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian street preacher and anti-abortion activist, regularly shared his views as a way to exercise his faith. This often led him to near a city amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi.
In 2019, the City adopted a public demonstration ordinance that required all“ protests” or“ demonstrations” near the amphitheater around the time of events to be confined to a designated protest area. This area was located away from main pedestrian traffic.
In 2021, Olivier preached outside the designated protest area using a bullhorn and graphic antiabortion signs directed at amphitheater attendees. He was arrested, cited, and prosecuted for violating the ordinance. Olivier ultimately pleaded no contest. He was fined $ 304, placed on probation for a year, and faced a suspended 10-day jail term if he violated the ordinance again during his probation. Olivier paid the fine, did not appeal his conviction, and served no jail time.
Procedural History Upon completing his sentence, Olivier wanted to resume preaching near the amphitheater outside of the designated protest area. He ultimately filed a federal civil rights action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the City of Brandon, alleging that the city ordinance violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by relegating him and other speakers to an“ out-of-the-way” protest zone. Olivier sought declaratory judgment and an injunction preventing future enforcement of the ordinance.
At district court, the City moved to dismiss, arguing that under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477( 1994), a person previously convicted of violating a statute cannot use a § 1983 to challenge the constitutionality of that statute since success would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the success on Olivier’ s First Amendment claim would necessarily call his prior conviction into question and was thus barred by Heck. This led to a Circuit split as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a suit for“ prospective injunctive relief” was not barred by Heck since it did“ neither invalidate [ d ] nor impose [ d ] tort liability for a prior conviction.” Thus, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari to resolve the Circuit split.
The Supreme Court of the United States On March 20, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Fifth Circuit’ s decision and held that Olivier’ s suit could proceed because his claim only sought prospective relief and therefore was not barred by Heck.
Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, explained that bars § 1983 suits that necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal judgment where the plaintiff seeks damages or other relief, but it does not prohibit suits that are“ wholly forward-looking” and challenge only future enforcement of the law.
The Court relied on and correlated past rulings from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477( 1994), Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U. S. 641( 1997), and Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U. S. 74( 2005) to establish the legal principle in this case. The Court first explained that in Heck, a man had been convicted of manslaughter in state court and was serving a 15-year prison sentence. He filed a § 1983 suit against two prosecutors and a police investigator in federal court while his appeal was pending. Heck alleged that they committed misconduct by destroying exculpatory evidence to secure his conviction. He sought monetary damages that would be“ attributable to [ his ] unconstitutional conviction” as a remedy. Heck, 512 U. S., at 489-490.
Attorney Eric P. Daigle is the founder and principal attorney of Daigle Law Group, LLC. This nationally recognized law firm specializes in legal consultation and operational management for law enforcement agencies across the United States. Eric is a nationally recognized legal instructor who delivers training on a wide range of critical topics, including use of force, internal affairs investigations, application of the First and Fourth Amendments, operational liability, and agency policy development.
New Jersey Police Chief Magazine / 21