Blockbuster Supreme Court Ruling! 9-0 Decision Stuns Court Observers - No One Thought This Was Possible
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian arrested while preaching near a suburban amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi, may proceed with his civil rights lawsuit challenging the local ordinance that led to his arrest.
Olivier had previously been convicted of violating a city ordinance that restricted demonstrations to a designated “protest zone.” Lower courts had barred him from pursuing his claims, determining that his prior conviction prevented him from filing a lawsuit over the incident.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, allowing Olivier’s case to move forward and be considered on its merits.
“Given that Olivier asked for only a forward-looking remedy — an injunction stopping officials from enforcing the city ordinance in the future — his suit can proceed, notwithstanding his prior conviction,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.
Olivier’s lawyers stated that he was peacefully demonstrating when he was arrested for refusing to relocate to a designated “protest zone.” They argued that the legal principle involved impacts free speech cases across the political spectrum.
“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,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of the conservative nonprofit First Liberty Institute, per the AP.
“As people of faith, we look to the judiciary to protect our constitutional right to spread the gospel,” added attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn.
The decision opens the door for him to file a civil rights lawsuit, although it does not guarantee a victory. Local governments have expressed concern that a ruling in favor of Olivier could have significant implications, potentially leading to an influx of new lawsuits against cities and towns.
The city of Brandon has stated that the restrictions were not based on religion and that Olivier had various other legal options to contest the law. City attorneys indicated that the ordinance, which limits Olivier to a designated “protest zone,” has previously withstood another lawsuit.
In 2019, Olivier was not permitted to preach outside the theater or use signs or speakers during live events. Olivier was arrested in 2021 for breaking the town’s ordinance that limited where he could speak in public. Later, he sued, saying the city had violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
Olivier didn’t go to court over the $350 fine he got. Instead, he filed suit to make sure that the city law wouldn’t stop him or someone else like him from preaching outside the theater.
“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,” Kagan wrote.
Heck v. Humphrey set a precedent holding that a person can’t sue to overturn a prior conviction. Olivier’s case challenged that precedent.
Kagan said that a lawsuit asking for future help with an activity, like Olivier exercising his First Amendment rights, was valid under the court’s rules. She said it was like a prisoner asking for a fairer trial in the future.
“Olivier’s suit merely attempts to prevent a future prosecution, so the Heck bar does not come into play,” Kagan wrote.
“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.”
Earlier, Kagan denied a request from four Mexican nationals who asked the court to block their deportation orders so they could file an appeal.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
