Unit 5 Case

1. Snyder v Phelps
BACKGROUND OF CASE: The Wellsboro Baptist Church (WBC) of Kansas
has a conservative viewpoint and literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe
homosexuality is a sin and those that condone are equally guilty. Believing the
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy is too lenient toward homosexuals, the church
has preached that the United States, its military and soldiers are punished, referring
to 9/11/2001 and troop casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. WBC members
protested 1,000 feet outside the military funeral of Matthew Snyder (who was not
homosexual) carrying signs deemed by mourners as vulgar and upsetting such as
“Thank God For Dead Soldiers,” and “You’re Going to Hell.” Distraught, the father
of Matthew Snyder sued WBC and asked for financial damages as a result of the
emotional distress caused by disrupting a private ceremony. The Federal District
court agreed with Mr. Snyder, but when appealed to the 4
th
Circuit Court of Appeals
(4
th
Circuit), the ruling was overturned. The case was reviewed before the Supreme
Court (SCOTUS). Many states have tort shield laws which prevent citizens from
being harassed. The major question is whether the WBC was legitimately protesting
or harassing.
Amicus Curiae Briefs
EXPLANATION: The following brief is written supporting the petitioner
(Snyder). It was put forward by the American Legion which is a civic group of
veterans.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Although it disclaimed doing so, the Fourth Circuit effectively ruled that
respondents’ speech was automatically protected simply because it constituted
opinion. As this Court’s precedents make plain, however, even opinion can be
regulated in certain limited contexts—most importantly, where combined with
offensive conduct—so long as the government’s interests are strong enough and the
regulations are appropriately tailored. By failing to consider this possibility, the 4
th
Circuit mistakenly struck down critical common-law shields that protect private
citizens from focused picketing, which is fundamentally different from more
generally directed means of communication that may not be completely banned.
EXPLANATION:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a non-profit group that supports a
broad interpretation of the Constitution. While often viewed as a liberally based
organization, the group also has defended conservative peoples such as the Ku Klux
Klan, Neo-Nazis and the WBC

2. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
It is important at the outset to stress what this case is and is not about. First and
foremost, this case is about speech, not conduct. Respondents displayed their signs
at a location chosen for them by local law enforcement, not one they chose
themselves. And that location—1000 feet from the church entrance—was 10 times
farther removed from the church than Maryland’s later-enacted funeral statute
would permit. Because this is a pure speech case, the Court of Appeals ruled
correctly…the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and the free
exercise of religion are designed to protect the right of speakers to voice their views
on matters of public concern and to express their religious convictions.