Snyder v. Phelps puts the First Amendment at issue

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder v. Phelps this month. The case, primarily dealing with the First Amendment of the Constitution, has garnered much attention due to the controversial speech involved. Snyder, the father of a fallen Marine, sued Phelps and his church for a variety of state tort claims, alleging that a protest staged by Phelps at Snyder's son's funeral caused Snyder mental harm.

Phelps held the protest to spread his message that Sept. 11 and the conflict currently happening in the Middle East are punishments handed down by God because the U.S. and its military tolerate homosexuality. Snyder found out about the signs, which included things like "Thank God for dead soldiers," "Semper fi f*gs" and "You're going to hell," and also learned of an "epic" posted on Phelps' website that scorned Snyder's family for raising a Marine.

A jury awarded Snyder $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. Phelps appealed and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judgment, finding that, as despicable as Phelps' speech was, he was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will hear both sides and make a final ruling this month.

Snyder will put forth a variety of legal theories. First, Snyder argues that the Court should consider the competing interests of both parties: his interest in having a peaceful funeral for his son and Phelps' interest in speaking his opinion and being protected by the First Amendment. Snyder also will argue that Phelps' speech was directed at him as opposed to being of public concern. Lastly, Snyder's position is that his own First Amendment rights were infringed upon by Phelps' outrageous speech.

Phelps, on the other hand, will argue that the Court of Appeals properly overturned the jury verdict and appropriately upheld his First Amendment right to speak his mind. Phelps will present the argument that his protest was simply his opinion and should not be silenced just because it offends another person. Also, he points out that Snyder has intentionally subjected himself to the standard of being a public figure by putting himself into the media after the funeral. Lastly, Phelps will argue that Snyder's funeral was a public event and therefore had a lesser interest of privacy.

At its most basic level, this case comes down to the First Amendment freedoms of Phelps and whether they infringed upon the freedoms of Snyder. Phelps is not contending that Snyder has not suffered mental injury due to his conduct - he is simply contending that his conduct was protected. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution will be put to work.

Sources

SOCTUSblog Briefs and Documents