>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
According to Olivier’s legal team, he was peacefully sharing his faith when authorities arrested him for refusing to relocate to the city’s designated protest area. His attorneys emphasized that the case goes far beyond one individual, warning that the principle at stake could affect Americans across the political and ideological spectrum.
Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, hailed the ruling as a major victory for constitutional rights.
“This is not only a win for the right to share your faith in public, but also a win for every American’s right to have their day in court when their First Amendment rights are violated,” Shackelford said.
Attorney Allyson Ho, representing Olivier, echoed that sentiment and underscored the broader importance of the judiciary in defending religious expression.
“As people of faith, we look to the judiciary to protect our constitutional right to spread the gospel,” Ho said.
While the ruling allows Olivier’s lawsuit to proceed, it does not guarantee he will ultimately win. Instead, it ensures that his claims will finally be evaluated in court—a key distinction that could open the door for similar legal challenges across the country.
Officials in Brandon have pushed back, insisting that their ordinance is neutral and not aimed at suppressing religious speech. City attorneys argue that Olivier had other legal avenues available to challenge the law and point out that the restriction has previously survived judicial scrutiny.
The dispute traces back to 2019, when Olivier was barred from preaching outside the amphitheater during live events and prohibited from using signs or amplification devices. In 2021, he was arrested for violating those rules. Rather than contesting the $350 fine in court, Olivier chose a different path—filing a lawsuit aimed at preventing future enforcement of the ordinance against himself or others.
Kagan addressed this distinction directly, emphasizing that individuals can challenge laws prospectively if they face a credible threat of enforcement.
“Assuming a credible threat of prosecution, a plaintiff can bring an action to challenge a local law as violating the Constitution and to prevent that law’s future enforcement,” she wrote.
A central issue in the case involved the precedent set by Heck v. Humphrey, which generally prevents individuals from using civil lawsuits to undermine prior convictions. Olivier’s case tested the limits of that precedent.
Kagan clarified that Olivier’s lawsuit does not attempt to revisit or invalidate his conviction, but instead seeks to stop future enforcement of the ordinance. That distinction proved critical in the Court’s reasoning.
“Olivier’s suit merely attempts to prevent a future prosecution, so the Heck bar does not come into play,” Kagan wrote.
She further emphasized the forward-looking nature of the case, noting that it is entirely focused on what may happen next—not what has already occurred.
“There is no looking back in Olivier’s suit; both in the allegations made, and in the relief sought, the suit is entirely future-oriented – even if success in it shows that something past should not have occurred,” Kagan continued. “His suit to enjoin the ordinance, so he can return to the amphitheater, may proceed.”
In a separate development, Kagan also denied a request from four Mexican nationals seeking to halt their deportation orders while pursuing an appeal, highlighting the Court’s broader workload on immigration and constitutional issues.
For now, Olivier’s case moves forward, setting the stage for what could become a significant legal battle over free speech, religious liberty, and the power of local governments to regulate public expression.
Harray for our side.