2026-03-20 / CNN
作者：约翰·弗里茨
更新于29分钟前
更新于2026年3月20日美国东部时间上午10:55
发布于2026年3月20日美国东部时间上午10:12
最高法院
[查看所有主题]
Facebook
推特
邮件
链接
Threads
链接已复制！
美国最高法院于2026年3月4日在华盛顿特区被拍摄。
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
周五，美国最高法院重启了一名街头传教士的第一修正案诉讼。该传教士曾在密西西比州郊区一个社区试图进入圆形剧场参加音乐会时，用扩音器称人们为”妓女”、”耶洗别”和”娘娘腔”。
大法官埃琳娜·卡根（Elena Kagan）撰写了全体一致通过的意见书。
法院的争议焦点并非密西西比州杰克逊市外布兰登市颁布的抗议管制条例的合宪性。相反，大法官们的问题是，尽管加布里埃尔·奥利弗（Gabriel Olivier）已因违反该条例被定罪，他是否仍能提起民事诉讼挑战该条例。
广告反馈
1994年最高法院先例Heck v. Humphrey禁止因犯罪被定罪的人通过民事诉讼有效地推翻其定罪。由于奥利弗此前因违反布兰登市条例被定罪，包括美国第五巡回上诉法院在内的下级法院裁定，他对该市规定提出的民事诉讼无法继续。
加布里埃尔·奥利弗2019年1月在密歇根州亨廷顿伍兹公共图书馆外抗议变装皇后故事时间活动。
Junfu Han/底特律自由报/Imagn
12月的口头辩论几乎完全围绕如何解释由已故大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚（Antonin Scalia）撰写的Heck先例展开。该裁决旨在阻止因犯罪被定罪的人对警察或其他官员提起民事诉讼，因为如果诉讼成功，将可能有效推翻其定罪。如果法院在审查民事诉讼时发现相关法律违宪，那么违反该法律的人几乎肯定会试图推翻其定罪和刑罚。
但奥利弗表示他不会这样做——他只想阻止该条例的未来执行。
尽管此案技术性较强，但法院的裁决可能对全国类似条例产生广泛影响。地方政府声称，奥利弗的立场将对游行许可要求、成人企业分区规则和无家可归者营地管理规定带来新的法律挑战。
2018年和2019年，奥利弗多次前往布兰登市，在该市圆形剧场附近的人行道上分享信仰。2019年，该市通过条例要求抗议者聚集在约265英尺外的指定区域。条例禁止可在100英尺外听到声音的扩音器，并要求无论信息内容如何，所有标语都必须由手持。
该市称抗议活动一片混乱。奥利弗在音乐会观众进入圆形剧场时对他们大喊大叫——使用”淫妇”和”醉汉”等词汇。根据法院记录，该组织有时会举着描绘堕胎胎儿的大型标语。音乐会观众会走进车流以避开该组织。警方不得不介入防止该组织与参与者之间发生斗殴。
2021年，当音乐会观众前来聆听乡村音乐歌手李·布赖斯（Lee Brice）表演时，警方建议奥利弗及其组织前往指定区域。根据法院记录，奥利弗拒绝了，随后因违反条例被捕。他认罪但未提出辩护，被判罚款和一年无监督缓刑。
近年来，保守派6-3多数的最高法院多次支持宗教诉求，尽管奥利弗向最高法院的上诉并未直接涉及第一修正案。在奥利弗案件所依赖的民权法下，美国人提起诉讼的程度也存在激烈争议，这一争议在去年另一无关案件中更加引人注目。
奥利弗的部分代理律师来自First Liberty Institute，该组织近年来已就多个宗教诉讼向最高法院提起成功上诉。
最高法院
[查看所有主题]
Facebook
推特
邮件
链接
Threads
链接已复制！
广告反馈
Supreme Court revives First Amendment lawsuit from street preacher who called concertgoers ‘whores,’ ‘Jezebels’ and ‘sissies’
2026-03-20 / CNN
By John Fritze
Updated 29 min ago
Updated Mar 20, 2026, 10:55 AM ET
PUBLISHED Mar 20, 2026, 10:12 AM ET
Supreme Court
[See all topics]
Facebook TweetEmailLink Threads
Link Copied!
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on March 04, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Friday revived a First Amendment lawsuit from a street preacher who used a loudspeaker to call people “whores,” “Jezebels” and “sissies” as they tried to enter an amphitheater to attend concerts in a suburban Mississippi community.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.
The issue for the court was not the constitutionality of the protest-control ordinance enacted by the city of Brandon, located outside Jackson, Mississippi. Rather, the question for the justices was whether sidewalk preacher Gabriel Olivier could file a civil suit challenging the ordinance even though he had already been convicted of violating it.
Ad Feedback
A 1994 Supreme Court precedent, Heck v. Humphrey, bars people convicted of a crime from using civil lawsuits to effectively reverse their convictions. Because Olivier had previously been convicted of violating Brandon’s ordinance, lower courts, including the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, concluded that his civil lawsuit challenging the city’s rule could not move forward.
Gabriel Olivier protests a drag queen story time event outside of Huntington Woods Public Library in Huntington Woods, Michigan, in January 2019.
Junfu Han/Detroit Free Press/Imagn
The December oral argument turned almost entirely on how to interpret the Heck precedent, which was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. That decision was intended to block people convicted of a crime from filing a civil suit against police or other officials that would, if successful, effectively let them undermine their conviction. If a court reviewing that civil suit found an underlying law unconstitutional, then people guilty of violating it would almost certainly seek to toss their conviction and punishment.
But Olivier said he would not do so – that he only wanted to block future enforcement of the ordinance.
Though the case is technical, the court’s decision could have broad implications for similar ordinances across the country. Local governments claimed that Olivier’s position would create new legal challenges to parade permitting requirements, zoning rules for adult businesses and regulations around homeless encampments.
Olivier traveled to Brandon several times in 2018 and 2019 to share his faith on sidewalks near the city’s amphitheater. In 2019, the city passed an ordinance requiring protesters to gather in a designated area about 265 feet away. It banned loudspeakers that could be heard more than 100 feet away and required signs – regardless of their message – to be handheld.
The city described the protests as chaotic. Olivier yelled at concertgoers – using words like “fornicator” and “drunkards” – as they entered the amphitheater. The group sometimes held large signs depicting aborted fetuses, according to court records. Concertgoers would walk into traffic to avoid the group. Police would have to intervene to prevent fights between the group and attendees, the city said.
In 2021, as concertgoers arrived to hear country music artist Lee Brice perform, police advised Olivier and his group to move to the designated area. Olivier declined, according to court records, and was arrested for violating the ordinance. He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to a fine and a year’s unsupervised probation.
The conservative 6-3 Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with religious claims in recent years, although Olivier’s appeal to the Supreme Court did not directly deal with the First Amendment. There has also been a thorny debate percolating over the extent to which Americans may sue officials under a civil rights law Olivier is relying on for his case, a dispute that came into sharper view in an unrelated case last year.
Olivier was represented in part by First Liberty Institute, a group that has brought several successful religious appeals to the Supreme Court in recent years.
Supreme Court
[See all topics]
Facebook TweetEmailLink Threads
Link Copied!
Ad Feedback
发表回复