May 2026
In Heck, the Court ultimately ruled that § 1983 did not allow the suit and that a defendant cannot claim damages for an alleged unconstitutional conviction without showing that it had already been overturned in some way. Thus, a claim as such“ must be brought in habeas corpus proceedings.” Id. at 481. Therefore, Heck bars“§ 1983 damages actions that necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement.” Id. at 468.
The ruling in Heck was later expanded in Edwards v. Balisok where a prisoner alleged that disciplinary hearing procedures violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. He sought monetary damages for the alleged past violation and an injunction that required prison officials to adopt new procedures in order to“ prevent future violations.” Edwards, 520 U. S. at 648.
The Court ruled that the prisoner could not obtain damages without demonstrating“ the invalidity of the punishment imposed” on him, and it was barred by Heck. 520 U. S., at 648. However, the Court found that his claim for“ prospective injunctive relief” was different. The Court ruled that a claim for prospective injunctive relief could be brought under § 1983 since it did not depend on showing the“ invalidity of a previous” sentencing decision. Id.
In Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U. S. 74( 2004), the Court ruled allowed prisoners to bring a § 1983 suit alleging that existing parole procedures violated the Due Process Clause. The Court also allowed the prisoners to request an injunction that would require compliance in the future because it was“ distant” from“ the core of habeas.” Wilkinson, 544 U. S. at 82. Therefore, it was not barred by Heck.
Applying this framework, the Court emphasized that Olivier did not seek to overturn his prior conviction, recover damages tied to it, or otherwise obtain relief that would undermine the validity of that conviction. Since he only sought a declaration that the ordinance violates the First Amendment and an injunction preventing future enforcement, the Court found that success on his claim would not render his past conviction invalid or imply its invalidity under Heck. Thus, the Court remanded the case so that Olivier’ s First Amendment challenge to the ordinance could be evaluated on its merits.
Takeaway Olivier v. City of Brandon reinforces that enforcing protest and designated protest area ordinances will be scrutinized under the First Amendment. Moreover, Olivier also emphasizes that a prior conviction under such an ordinance does not prevent the speaker from filing a § 1983 claim to stop future enforcement. Therefore, officers should enforce protest-related rules in a clear, content-neutral manner. Further, officers should be prepared to articulate specific safety, noise-control, or obstruction reasons for moving or arresting speakers with those reasons thoroughly documented throughout reports. Olivier v. City of Brandon, 607 US _( 2026)
New Jersey Police Chief Magazine / 22