| Snyder v. Phelps | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued October 6, 2010 Decided March 2, 2011 |
||||||
| Full case name | Albert Snyder v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr.; Westboro Baptist Church, Incorporated; Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis; Shirley L. Phelps-Roper | |||||
| Docket nos. | 09-751 | |||||
| Prior history | judgment for plaintiff, 533 F.Supp.2d 567 (D. Md., 2008); reversed, 580 F.3d 206 (4th Cir., 2009) | |||||
| Argument | Oral argument | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue, cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is found to be "outrageous". Fourth Circuit affirmed, trial court reversed and remanded. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan | |||||
| Concurrence | Breyer | |||||
| Dissent | Alito | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. I | ||||||
Snyder v. Phelps was a case heard by Supreme Court of the United States on whether the First Amendment protected protests of public protestors at a funeral against tort liability. It involved a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress made by Albert Snyder, the father of Matthew Snyder, a Marine who died in the Iraq War. The claim was made against the Phelps family, including Fred Phelps, and against Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). The Court ruled in favor of Phelps in an 8-1 decision, holding that their speech related to a public issue, and was disseminated on a public sidewalk.
Contents |
On March 10, 2006, Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder, who was killed in a non-combat-related vehicle accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006.[1][2] On March 8, WBC announced its intention of picketing the funeral in Westminister, Maryland, as it had done at thousands of other funerals throughout the country in protest of what they considered America's increasing tolerance of homosexuality. 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".[3] Members of the Patriot Guard were present in support of the Snyder family.[4] 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".[5]
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.[5] 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".[6] 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 the obituary in the newspaper. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining three counts.[6]
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".[7] | ” |
Snyder described his emotional injuries, including that he became tearful and 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".[8] Snyder called several expert witnesses who testified that worsening of his diabetes and severe depression had resulted from the Defendants' activities.[7]
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 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.[8]
In his instructions to the jury, Judge Richard D. Bennett for the District Court 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."[9][8][10] 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.[11]
On October 31, 2007, the jury found for the Plaintiff and awarded Snyder's father US$2.9 million in compensatory damages, later adding a decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and an additional $2 million for causing emotional distress (a total of $10.9 million). The Phelps said the church would not change its message because of the verdict.[12] 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 $5 million. Court liens were ordered on church buildings and Phelps's law office in an attempt to ensure that the damages were paid.[13]
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 actual fact, and so were a form of protected speech.[8][14] On March 30, 2010, the Court further ordered Albert Snyder to pay the court costs for the defendants, an amount totaling $16,510. Political commentator Bill O'Reilly agreed to cover the costs, pending appeal.[15]
A writ of certiorari was filed on March 8, 2010.[16] Arguments were heard beginning on October 13, represented by three of Phelps' daughters, including Margie Phelps[17][18]
The questions presented are as follows:[16]
Law professor Deana Pollard Sacks, who presented a historical analysis of cases and issues significant to this case that was published by the Yale Law Journal, concluded:
Established speech-tort precedent holds that the greatest speech protection is imposed where the plaintiff is a public figure, the speech is of public concern, and the injury is purely emotional or dignitary in nature. To the contrary, where the plaintiff is a private individual, the speech is private in nature, or the injury involves more than mere “feelings or reputation,” the First Amendment presents less of an obstacle to tort liability.[19]
Several news and civil rights organizations filed amicus briefs in support of Phelps, including the American Civil Liberties Union,[20] 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.[21]
Other briefs were filed in favor of Snyder as well, including one by Senate Majority and Minority Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, and forty other members of the United States Senate,[22] a number of veterans groups, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars[23] and the American Legion,[24] the John Marshall Veterans Legal Support Center and Clinic,[25] and another by Kansas, forty-seven other States and the District of Columbia.[26]
In an 8–1 decision (with the judges ruling the same way as they did in United States v. Stevens in 2010),[27] 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".[28]
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".[29] 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.[30]
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion, emphasizing his view that the decision related only to picketing, and did not take Westboro Baptist Church's on-line publications that attacked the Snyder family into consideration.[31]
Justice Samuel Alito, as in the Stevens case, 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".[28] 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".[30]