Snyder v. Phelps Case Notes

Snyder v. Phelps

Case Overview

• Citation: 131 S.Ct. 1207

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States

• Argued: October 6, 2010

• Decided: March 2, 2011

• Petitioner: Albert Snyder

• Respondents: Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al.

• Case Number: 09–751

Background of the Case

• Albert Snyder, the father of a deceased military service member, Matthew Snyder, filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and its members.

• The lawsuit stemmed from WBC's anti-homosexual demonstration near Matthew Snyder's funeral.

• Snyder's claims included:

  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

  • Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion upon Seclusion

  • Civil Conspiracy

Legal History

• District Court: The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially ruled in favor of Snyder, awarding significant damages.

  • Judge Richard D. Bennett presided.

  • The court remitted a portion of the punitive damages but otherwise denied post-trial motions by WBC.

  • Original award: $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

  • Remitted punitive damages: $2.1 million.

• Court of Appeals: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision.

  • Circuit Judge King presided.

  • The court found that WBC's speech was protected under the First Amendment.

• Supreme Court: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's decision.

Supreme Court Decision

• Holding: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that WBC's speech was protected by the First Amendment.

  • Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

Key Issues and Holdings

• First Amendment Protection: The central question was whether the First Amendment protected the church members from tort liability for their speech.

• Speech of Public Concern: The Court held that the speech of WBC members constituted speech on matters of public concern and was therefore entitled to special protection under the First Amendment.

  • Content, form, and context of the speech were considered.

• Captive Audience Doctrine: The Court found that Snyder was not a captive audience at the funeral for the purposes of the captive audience doctrine.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

• Concurring Opinion: Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion.

• Dissenting Opinion: Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes

• Points of law summarized by Westlaw editors, providing a quick reference to key legal principles.

Federal Courts

• Presentation of Questions Below or on Review; Record; Waiver:

  • The Supreme Court declined to consider a message posted on WBC's website because it was not raised in Snyder's certiorari petition and potentially raised distinct issues.

  • Reference: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; U.S.Sup.Ct.Rule 14.1(g), 28 U.S.C.A.

Infliction of Emotional Distress

• Elements in General:

  • To succeed on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Maryland, a plaintiff must prove:

    • The defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.

    • The conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

Constitutional Law

• Particular Issues and Applications in General:

  • The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can be a defense in state tort suits, including those for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Reference: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

• Matters of Public Concern:

  • Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.

  • The First Amendment reflects a national commitment to uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues.

  • Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection.

• Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press/Matters of Private Concern:

  • Not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance.

  • First Amendment protections are often less rigorous when matters of purely private significance are at issue.

  • Restricting speech on purely private matters does not implicate the same constitutional concerns as limiting speech on matters of public interest.

• Boundaries of Public Concern Test:

  • The boundaries are not well-defined, but courts must ensure they do not become inadvertent censors.

• Definition of Public Concern:

  • Speech deals with matters of public concern when it relates to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.

  • It also includes subjects of legitimate news interest, i.e., subjects of general interest and of value and concern to the public.

• Relevance of Controversial Character:

  • The controversial nature of a statement does not determine whether it deals with a matter of public concern.

• Determining Public vs. Private Concern:

  • Courts must examine the content, form, and context of the speech, as revealed by the whole record.

• Scope and Extent of Review:

  • In First Amendment free speech cases, the Supreme Court must make an independent examination of the whole record.

• Factors in Determining Public or Private Concern:

  • No single factor is dispositive; courts must evaluate all circumstances of the speech, including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said.

• Picketing/Government Property and Facilities/Infliction of Emotional Distress:

  • Speech of church members picketing near a military funeral was of public concern and entitled to special First Amendment protection.

  • The picketers' signs related to broad societal issues, and the picketing occurred in a public place adjacent to a public street.

• Government Property and Events:

  • A public place adjacent to a public street occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection of speech.

• Streets and Highways:

  • Public streets are the archetype of a traditional public forum for First Amendment protection of speech.

• Absolute Nature of Right/Reasonableness:

  • Even protected speech may be subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech/Government Property and Events:

  • Speech at a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.

  • The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

• Particular Issues and Applications in General/Injurious Speech:

  • The point of all speech protection under the First Amendment is to shield choices of content that may be hurtful.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech:

  • Insulting and outrageous speech must be tolerated in public debate to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

• Picketing/Torts:

  • A military service member's father was not a captive audience at the funeral, so the captive audience doctrine did not apply.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech:

  • The First Amendment does not generally allow the government to decide which types of protected speech are offensive enough to require protection for unwilling listeners.

  • The burden is on the viewer to avoid further exposure by averting their eyes.

• Receipt of Information or Ideas; Listeners' Rights:

  • The government's ability to shut off discourse to protect others from hearing it depends on a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.

• Relation Between State and Federal Rights:

  • Courts should rely on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case when there are clashes between First Amendment protection of speech and state-law rights.

Syllabus Points

Timeline Context

• For 20 years, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has picketed military funerals.

  • Belief: God hates the U.S. for tolerance of homosexuality in the military.

  • Also condemns the Catholic Church.

Snyder Funeral Picketing

• Fred Phelps and six WBC parishioners picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder in Maryland.

  • Snyder was killed in Iraq, in the line of duty.

• The picketing site was on public land, 1,000 feet from the church.

  • Conducted according to guidance from local law enforcement.

• Picketers displayed signs with messages:

  • “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”

  • “Fags Doom Nations”

  • “America is Doomed”

  • “Priests Rape Boys”

  • “You're Going to Hell”

• The picketing lasted for about 30 minutes before the funeral.

Snyder's Lawsuit

• Matthew Snyder's father (Snyder) filed a lawsuit against Phelps, his daughters, and the church.

  • Claims: Intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.

• The Jury held Westboro liable for millions in compensatory and punitive damages.

Westboro's Defense

• WBC challenged the verdict, claiming excessive damages.

  • Sought judgment as a matter of law, based on First Amendment protection of speech.

District Court Ruling

• The Court reduced punitive damages but upheld the verdict.

Fourth Circuit Reversal

• The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that WBC's statements were protected by the First Amendment.

  • Statements were on matters of public concern.

  • Statements were not provably false.

  • Expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric.

Supreme Court Decision

• The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability in this case.

Key Arguments and Analysis

• First Amendment Defense: The Free Speech Clause can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50–51, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41

• Public vs. Private Concern: Whether the First Amendment protects WBC's speech depends on whether it is of public or private concern.

  • “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708

• Definition of Public Concern: Speech is of public concern if it relates to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community or is a subject of general interest and concern to the public.

  • Statement's controversial character is irrelevant.

• Content, Form, and Context: To determine whether speech is of public or private concern, the Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context’ ” of the speech, as revealed by the whole record.

  • Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593

• Content of Westboro's Signs: The content of WBC's signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters.

  • Issues highlighted: political and moral conduct of the United States, homosexuality in the military, scandals involving the Catholic clergy.

• Context of the Speech: The connection with Matthew Snyder's funeral cannot by itself transform the nature of WBC's speech.

  • The signs reflected WBC's condemnation of much in modern society.

  • WBC had been actively engaged in speaking on these subjects long before becoming aware of Matthew Snyder.

• Reasonable Time, Place, or Manner Restrictions: Even protected speech is still “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.”

  • Clark v. Community for Creative Non–Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221

• Captive Audience Doctrine: Snyder may not recover for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

  • The captive audience doctrine should not be expanded to the circumstances here. WBC stayed well away from the memorial service, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself.

• Civil Conspiracy: Because the First Amendment bars Snyder from recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress or intrusion upon seclusion (the allegedly unlawful activity Westboro conspired to accomplish), Snyder also cannot recover for civil conspiracy based on those torts.

Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion Highlights

• Peaceful Manner: Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property in a peaceful manner.

• Compliance: They picketed in full compliance with the guidance of local officials.

• Non-Disruptive Behavior: They did not disrupt Matthew Snyder's funeral.

• Protection of Hurtful Speech: The Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled. Therefore, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

Justice Breyer's Concurrence

• Picketing Regulations: States can sometimes regulate picketing, even on matters of public concern.

• Means of Communication: The constitutionally protected nature of the end (communicating views on a public matter) would not shield the use of unlawful, unprotected means.

• Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The dissent requires the Court to ask whether its holding unreasonably limits liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, to the point where a person might launch a verbal assault upon another, revealing intimate details while knowing it will cause severe emotional harm.

Justice Alito's Dissent

• Vicious Verbal Assault: The national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for vicious verbal assault.

• IIED Tort: Most jurisdictions permit recovery in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

• Narrow Tort: This is a very narrow tort with rigorous requirements.

• Attack on Matthew Snyder: Respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder as part of a well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention.

• Availability of Alternative Venues: Westboro could have chosen to stage their protest at countless locations other than Matthew’s funeral.

Notes on the Syllabus:

• The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499

Case Overview

• Citation: 131 S.Ct. 1207

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States

• Argued: October 6, 2010

• Decided: March 2, 2011

• Petitioner: Albert Snyder

• Respondents: Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al.

• Case Number: 09–751

Background of the Case

• Albert Snyder, the father of a deceased military service member, Matthew Snyder, filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and its members.

• The lawsuit stemmed from WBC's anti-homosexual demonstration near Matthew Snyder's funeral.

• Snyder's claims included:

  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

  • Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion upon Seclusion

  • Civil Conspiracy

Legal History

• District Court: The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially ruled in favor of Snyder, awarding significant damages.

  • Judge Richard D. Bennett presided.

  • The court remitted a portion of the punitive damages but otherwise denied post-trial motions by WBC.

  • Original award: $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

  • Remitted punitive damages: $2.1 million.

• Court of Appeals: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision.

  • Circuit Judge King presided.

  • The court found that WBC's speech was protected under the First Amendment.

• Supreme Court: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's decision.

Supreme Court Decision

• Holding: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that WBC's speech was protected by the First Amendment.

  • Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

Key Issues and Holdings

• First Amendment Protection: The central question was whether the First Amendment protected the church members from tort liability for their speech.

• Speech of Public Concern: The Court held that the speech of WBC members constituted speech on matters of public concern and was therefore entitled to special protection under the First Amendment.

  • Content, form, and context of the speech were considered.

• Captive Audience Doctrine: The Court found that Snyder was not a captive audience at the funeral for the purposes of the captive audience doctrine.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

• Concurring Opinion: Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion.

• Dissenting Opinion: Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes

• Points of law summarized by Westlaw editors, providing a quick reference to key legal principles.

Federal Courts

• Presentation of Questions Below or on Review; Record; Waiver:

  • The Supreme Court declined to consider a message posted on WBC's website because it was not raised in Snyder's certiorari petition and potentially raised distinct issues.

  • Reference: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; U.S.Sup.Ct.Rule 14.1(g), 28 U.S.C.A.

Infliction of Emotional Distress

• Elements in General:

  • To succeed on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Maryland, a plaintiff must prove:

    • The defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.

    • The conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

Constitutional Law

• Particular Issues and Applications in General:

  • The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can be a defense in state tort suits, including those for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Reference: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

• Matters of Public Concern:

  • Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.

  • The First Amendment reflects a national commitment to uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues.

  • Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection.

• Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press/Matters of Private Concern:

  • Not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance.

  • First Amendment protections are often less rigorous when matters of purely private significance are at issue.

  • Restricting speech on purely private matters does not implicate the same constitutional concerns as limiting speech on matters of public interest.

• Boundaries of Public Concern Test:

  • The boundaries are not well-defined, but courts must ensure they do not become inadvertent censors.

• Definition of Public Concern:

  • Speech deals with matters of public concern when it relates to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.

  • It also includes subjects of legitimate news interest, i.e., subjects of general interest and of value and concern to the public.

• Relevance of Controversial Character:

  • The controversial nature of a statement does not determine whether it deals with a matter of public concern.

• Determining Public vs. Private Concern:

  • Courts must examine the content, form, and context of the speech, as revealed by the whole record.

• Scope and Extent of Review:

  • In First Amendment free speech cases, the Supreme Court must make an independent examination of the whole record.

• Factors in Determining Public or Private Concern:

  • No single factor is dispositive; courts must evaluate all circumstances of the speech, including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said.

• Picketing/Government Property and Facilities/Infliction of Emotional Distress:

  • Speech of church members picketing near a military funeral was of public concern and entitled to special First Amendment protection.

  • The picketers' signs related to broad societal issues, and the picketing occurred in a public place adjacent to a public street.

• Government Property and Events:

  • A public place adjacent to a public street occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection of speech.

• Streets and Highways:

  • Public streets are the archetype of a traditional public forum for First Amendment protection of speech.

• Absolute Nature of Right/Reasonableness:

  • Even protected speech may be subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech/Government Property and Events:

  • Speech at a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.

  • The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

• Particular Issues and Applications in General/Injurious Speech:

  • The point of all speech protection under the First Amendment is to shield choices of content that may be hurtful.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech:

  • Insulting and outrageous speech must be tolerated in public debate to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

• Picketing/Torts:

  • A military service member's father was not a captive audience at the funeral, so the captive audience doctrine did not apply.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech:

  • The First Amendment does not generally allow the government to decide which types of protected speech are offensive enough to require protection for unwilling listeners.

  • The burden is on the viewer to avoid further exposure by averting their eyes.

• Receipt of Information or Ideas; Listeners' Rights:

  • The government's ability to shut off discourse to protect others from hearing it depends on a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.

• Relation Between State and Federal Rights:

  • Courts should rely on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case when there are clashes between First Amendment protection of speech and state-law rights.

Syllabus Points

Timeline Context

• For 20 years, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has picketed military funerals.

  • Belief: God hates the U.S. for tolerance of homosexuality in the military.

  • Also condemns the Catholic Church.

Snyder Funeral Picketing

• Fred Phelps and six WBC parishioners picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder in Maryland.

  • Snyder was killed in Iraq, in the line of duty.

• The picketing site was on public land, 1,000 feet from the church.

  • Conducted according to guidance from local law enforcement.

• Picketers displayed signs with messages:

  • “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”

  • “Fags Doom Nations”

  • “America is Doomed”

  • “Priests Rape Boys”

  • “You're Going to Hell”

• The picketing lasted for about 30 minutes before the funeral.

Snyder's Lawsuit

• Matthew Snyder's father (Snyder) filed a lawsuit against Phelps, his daughters, and the church.

  • Claims: Intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.

• The Jury held Westboro liable for millions in compensatory and punitive damages.

Westboro's Defense

• WBC challenged the verdict, claiming excessive damages.

  • Sought judgment as a matter of law, based on First Amendment protection of speech.

District Court Ruling

• The Court reduced punitive damages but upheld the verdict.

Fourth Circuit Reversal

• The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that WBC's statements were protected by the First Amendment.

  • Statements were on matters of public concern.

  • Statements were not provably false.

  • Expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric.

Supreme Court Decision

• The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability in this case.

Key Arguments and Analysis

• First Amendment Defense: The Free Speech Clause can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50–51, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41

• Public vs. Private Concern: Whether the First Amendment protects WBC's speech depends on whether it is of public or private concern.

  • “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708

• Definition of Public Concern: Speech is of public concern if it relates to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community or is a subject of general interest and concern to the public.

  • Statement's controversial character is irrelevant.

• Content, Form, and Context: To determine whether speech is of public or private concern, the Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context’ ” of the speech, as revealed by the whole record.

  • Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593

• Content of Westboro's Signs: The content of WBC's signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters.

  • Issues highlighted: political and moral conduct of the United States, homosexuality in the military, scandals involving the Catholic clergy.

• Context of the Speech: The connection with Matthew Snyder's funeral cannot by itself transform the nature of WBC's speech.

  • The signs reflected WBC's condemnation of much in modern society.

  • WBC had been actively engaged in speaking on these subjects long before becoming aware of Matthew Snyder.

• Reasonable Time, Place, or Manner Restrictions: Even protected speech is still “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.”

  • Clark v. Community for Creative Non–Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221

• Captive Audience Doctrine: Snyder may not recover for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

  • The captive audience doctrine should not be expanded to the circumstances here. WBC stayed well away from the memorial service, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself.

• Civil Conspiracy: Because the First Amendment bars Snyder from recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress or intrusion upon seclusion (the allegedly unlawful activity Westboro conspired to accomplish), Snyder also cannot recover for civil conspiracy based on those torts.

Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion Highlights

• Peaceful Manner: Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property in a peaceful manner.

• Compliance: They picketed in full compliance with the guidance of local officials.

• Non-Disruptive Behavior: They did not disrupt Matthew Snyder's funeral.

• Protection of Hurtful Speech: The Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled. Therefore, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

Justice Breyer's Concurrence

• Picketing Regulations: States can sometimes regulate picketing, even on matters of public concern.

• Means of Communication: The constitutionally protected nature of the end (communicating views on a public matter) would not shield the use of unlawful, unprotected means.

• Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The dissent requires the Court to ask whether its holding unreasonably limits liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, to the point where a person might launch a verbal assault upon another, revealing intimate details while knowing it will cause severe emotional harm.

Justice Alito's Dissent

• Vicious Verbal Assault: The national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for vicious verbal assault.

• IIED Tort: Most jurisdictions permit recovery in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

• Narrow Tort: This is a very narrow tort with rigorous requirements.

• Attack on Matthew Snyder: Respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder as part of a well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention.

• Availability of Alternative Venues: Westboro could have chosen to stage their protest at countless locations other than Matthew’s funeral.

Notes on the Syllabus:

• The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499

Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion

• Issue:

  • Does the First Amendment protect the speech of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) from tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress when picketing at a military funeral?

• Rule:

  • The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects speech on matters of public concern.

  • This protection extends even to speech that is offensive or emotionally distressing, so long as it is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and does not fall into any other unprotected category.

  • The Court examines the content, form, and context of the speech to determine whether it addresses a matter of public concern.

• Application:

  • The Supreme Court applied the rule, finding that WBC's speech, though hurtful, was on matters of public concern.

  • The signs displayed by WBC related to broad issues of political and moral conduct, such as the U.S.'s tolerance of homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and the military.

  • The picketing took place on public land, and WBC complied with local law enforcement instructions.

  • The Court concluded that the speech, in its content, form, and context, addressed matters of public concern and was thus entitled to First Amendment protection.

• Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment shields WBC from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

  • The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision, which had reversed the District Court's ruling in favor of Snyder.

  • This ruling underscores the importance of protecting even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate remains uninhibited.

Case Overview

• Citation: 131 S.Ct. 1207

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States

• Argued: October 6, 2010

• Decided: March 2, 2011

• Petitioner: Albert Snyder

• Respondents: Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al.

• Case Number: 09–751

Background of the Case

• Albert Snyder, the father of a deceased military service member, Matthew Snyder, filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and its members.

• The lawsuit stemmed from WBC's anti-homosexual demonstration near Matthew Snyder's funeral.

• Snyder's claims included:

  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

  • Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion upon Seclusion

  • Civil Conspiracy

Legal History

• District Court: The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially ruled in favor of Snyder, awarding significant damages.

  • Judge Richard D. Bennett presided.

  • The court remitted a portion of the punitive damages but otherwise denied post-trial motions by WBC.

  • Original award: $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

  • Remitted punitive damages: $2.1 million.

• Court of Appeals: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision.

  • Circuit Judge King presided.

  • The court found that WBC's speech was protected under the First Amendment.

• Supreme Court: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's decision.

Supreme Court Decision

• Holding: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that WBC's speech was protected by the First Amendment.

  • Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

Key Issues and Holdings

• First Amendment Protection: The central question was whether the First Amendment protected the church members from tort liability for their speech.

• Speech of Public Concern: The Court held that the speech of WBC members constituted speech on matters of public concern and was therefore entitled to special protection under the First Amendment.

  • Content, form, and context of the speech were considered.

• Captive Audience Doctrine: The Court found that Snyder was not a captive audience at the funeral for the purposes of the captive audience doctrine.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

• Concurring Opinion: Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion.

• Dissenting Opinion: Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes

• Points of law summarized by Westlaw editors, providing a quick reference to key legal principles.

Federal Courts

• Presentation of Questions Below or on Review; Record; Waiver:

  • The Supreme Court declined to consider a message posted on WBC's website because it was not raised in Snyder's certiorari petition and potentially raised distinct issues.

  • Reference: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; U.S.Sup.Ct.Rule 14.1(g), 28 U.S.C.A.

Infliction of Emotional Distress

• Elements in General:

  • To succeed on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Maryland, a plaintiff must prove:

    • The defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.

    • The conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

Constitutional Law

• Particular Issues and Applications in General:

  • The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can be a defense in state tort suits, including those for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Reference: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

• Matters of Public Concern:

  • Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.

  • The First Amendment reflects a national commitment to uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues.

  • Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection.

• Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press/Matters of Private Concern:

  • Not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance.

  • First Amendment protections are often less rigorous when matters of purely private significance are at issue.

  • Restricting speech on purely private matters does not implicate the same constitutional concerns as limiting speech on matters of public interest.

• Boundaries of Public Concern Test:

  • The boundaries are not well-defined, but courts must ensure they do not become inadvertent censors.

• Definition of Public Concern:

  • Speech deals with matters of public concern when it relates to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.

  • It also includes subjects of legitimate news interest, i.e., subjects of general interest and of value and concern to the public.

• Relevance of Controversial Character:

  • The controversial nature of a statement does not determine whether it deals with a matter of public concern.

• Determining Public vs. Private Concern:

  • Courts must examine the content, form, and context of the speech, as revealed by the whole record.

• Scope and Extent of Review:

  • In First Amendment free speech cases, the Supreme Court must make an independent examination of the whole record.

• Factors in Determining Public or Private Concern:

  • No single factor is dispositive; courts must evaluate all circumstances of the speech, including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said.

• Picketing/Government Property and Facilities/Infliction of Emotional Distress:

  • Speech of church members picketing near a military funeral was of public concern and entitled to special First Amendment protection.

  • The picketers' signs related to broad societal issues, and the picketing occurred in a public place adjacent to a public street.

• Government Property and Events:

  • A public place adjacent to a public street occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection of speech.

• Streets and Highways:

  • Public streets are the archetype of a traditional public forum for First Amendment protection of speech.

• Absolute Nature of Right/Reasonableness:

  • Even protected speech may be subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech/Government Property and Events:

  • Speech at a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.

  • The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

• Particular Issues and Applications in General/Injurious Speech:

  • The point of all speech protection under the First Amendment is to shield choices of content that may be hurtful.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech:

  • Insulting and outrageous speech must be tolerated in public debate to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

• Picketing/Torts:

  • A military service member's father was not a captive audience at the funeral, so the captive audience doctrine did not apply.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech:

  • The First Amendment does not generally allow the government to decide which types of protected speech are offensive enough to require protection for unwilling listeners.

  • The burden is on the viewer to avoid further exposure by averting their eyes.

• Receipt of Information or Ideas; Listeners' Rights:

  • The government's ability to shut off discourse to protect others from hearing it depends on a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.

• Relation Between State and Federal Rights:

  • Courts should rely on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case when there are clashes between First Amendment protection of speech and state-law rights.

Syllabus Points

Timeline Context

• For 20 years, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has picketed military funerals.

  • Belief: God hates the U.S. for tolerance of homosexuality in the military.

  • Also condemns the Catholic Church.

Snyder Funeral Picketing

• Fred Phelps and six WBC parishioners picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder in Maryland.

  • Snyder was killed in Iraq, in the line of duty.

• The picketing site was on public land, 1,000 feet from the church.

  • Conducted according to guidance from local law enforcement.

• Picketers displayed signs with messages:

  • “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”

  • “Fags Doom Nations”

  • “America is Doomed”

  • “Priests Rape Boys”

  • “You're Going to Hell”

• The picketing lasted for about 30 minutes before the funeral.

Snyder's Lawsuit

• Matthew Snyder's father (Snyder) filed a lawsuit against Phelps, his daughters, and the church.

  • Claims: Intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.

• The Jury held Westboro liable for millions in compensatory and punitive damages.

Westboro's Defense

• WBC challenged the verdict, claiming excessive damages.

  • Sought judgment as a matter of law, based on First Amendment protection of speech.

District Court Ruling

• The Court reduced punitive damages but upheld the verdict.

Fourth Circuit Reversal

• The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that WBC's statements were protected by the First Amendment.

  • Statements were on matters of public concern.

  • Statements were not provably false.

  • Expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric.

Supreme Court Decision

• The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability in this case.

Key Arguments and Analysis

• First Amendment Defense: The Free Speech Clause can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50–51, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41

• Public vs. Private Concern: Whether the First Amendment protects WBC's speech depends on whether it is of public or private concern.

  • “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708

• Definition of Public Concern: Speech is of public concern if it relates to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community or is a subject of general interest and concern to the public.

  • Statement's controversial character is irrelevant.

• Content, Form, and Context: To determine whether speech is of public or private concern, the Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context’ ” of the speech, as revealed by the whole record.

  • Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593

• Content of Westboro's Signs: The content of WBC's signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters.

  • Issues highlighted: political and moral conduct of the United States, homosexuality in the military, scandals involving the Catholic clergy.

• Context of the Speech: The connection with Matthew Snyder's funeral cannot by itself transform the nature of WBC's speech.

  • The signs reflected WBC's condemnation of much in modern society.

  • WBC had been actively engaged in speaking on these subjects long before becoming aware of Matthew Snyder.

• Reasonable Time, Place, or Manner Restrictions: Even protected speech is still “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.”

  • Clark v. Community for Creative Non–Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221

• Captive Audience Doctrine: Snyder may not recover for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

  • The captive audience doctrine should not be expanded to the circumstances here. WBC stayed well away from the memorial service, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself.

• Civil Conspiracy: Because the First Amendment bars Snyder from recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress or intrusion upon seclusion (the allegedly unlawful activity Westboro conspired to accomplish), Snyder also cannot recover for civil conspiracy based on those torts.

Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion Highlights

• Peaceful Manner: Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property in a peaceful manner.

• Compliance: They picketed in full compliance with the guidance of local officials.

• Non-Disruptive Behavior: They did not disrupt Matthew Snyder's funeral.

• Protection of Hurtful Speech: The Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled. Therefore, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

Justice Breyer's Concurrence

• Picketing Regulations: States can sometimes regulate picketing, even on matters of public concern.

• Means of Communication: The constitutionally protected nature of the end (communicating views on a public matter) would not shield the use of unlawful, unprotected means.

• Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The dissent requires the Court to ask whether its holding unreasonably limits liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, to the point where a person might launch a verbal assault upon another, revealing intimate details while knowing it will cause severe emotional harm.

Justice Alito's Dissent

• Vicious Verbal Assault: The national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for vicious verbal assault.

• IIED Tort: Most jurisdictions permit recovery in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

• Narrow Tort: This is a very narrow tort with rigorous requirements.

• Attack on Matthew Snyder: Respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder as part of a well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention.

• Availability of Alternative Venues: Westboro could have chosen to stage their protest at countless locations other than Matthew’s funeral.

Notes on the Syllabus:

• The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499

Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion

• Issue:

  • Does the First Amendment protect the speech of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) from tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress when picketing at a military funeral?

• Rule:

  • The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects speech on matters of public concern.

  • This protection extends even to speech that is offensive or emotionally distressing, so long as it is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and does not fall into any other unprotected category.

  • The Court examines the content, form, and context of the speech to determine whether it addresses a matter of public concern.

• Application:

  • The Supreme Court applied the rule, finding that WBC's speech, though hurtful, was on matters of public concern.

  • The signs displayed by WBC related to broad issues of political and moral conduct, such as the U.S.'s tolerance of homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and the military.

  • The picketing took place on public land, and WBC complied with local law enforcement instructions.

  • The Court concluded that the speech, in its content, form, and context, addressed matters of public concern and was thus entitled to First Amendment protection.

• Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment shields WBC from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

  • The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision, which had reversed the District Court's ruling in favor of Snyder.

  • This ruling underscores the importance of protecting even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate remains uninhibited.

Case Overview

• Citation: 131 S.Ct. 1207

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States

• Argued: October 6, 2010

• Decided: March 2, 2011

• Petitioner: Albert Snyder

• Respondents: Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al.

• Case Number: 09–751

Background of the Case

• Albert Snyder, the father of a deceased military service member, Matthew Snyder, filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and its members.

• The lawsuit stemmed from WBC's anti-homosexual demonstration near Matthew Snyder's funeral.

• Snyder's claims included:

  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

  • Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion upon Seclusion

  • Civil Conspiracy

Legal History

• District Court: The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially ruled in favor of Snyder, awarding significant damages.

  • Judge Richard D. Bennett presided.

  • The court remitted a portion of the punitive damages but otherwise denied post-trial motions by WBC.

  • Original award: $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

  • Remitted punitive damages: $2.1 million.

• Court of Appeals: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision.

  • Circuit Judge King presided.

  • The court found that WBC's speech was protected under the First Amendment.

• Supreme Court: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's decision.

Supreme Court Decision

• Holding: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that WBC's speech was protected by the First Amendment.

  • Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

Key Issues and Holdings

• First Amendment Protection: The central question was whether the First Amendment protected the church members from tort liability for their speech.

• Speech of Public Concern: The Court held that the speech of WBC members constituted speech on matters of public concern and was therefore entitled to special protection under the First Amendment.

  • Content, form, and context of the speech were considered.

• Captive Audience Doctrine: The Court found that Snyder was not a captive audience at the funeral for the purposes of the captive audience doctrine.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

• Concurring Opinion: Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion.

• Dissenting Opinion: Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes

• Points of law summarized by Westlaw editors, providing a quick reference to key legal principles.

Federal Courts

• Presentation of Questions Below or on Review; Record; Waiver:

  • The Supreme Court declined to consider a message posted on WBC's website because it was not raised in Snyder's certiorari petition and potentially raised distinct issues.

  • Reference: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; U.S.Sup.Ct.Rule 14.1(g), 28 U.S.C.A.

Infliction of Emotional Distress

• Elements in General:

  • To succeed on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Maryland, a plaintiff must prove:

    • The defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.

    • The conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

Constitutional Law

• Particular Issues and Applications in General:

  • The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can be a defense in state tort suits, including those for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Reference: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

• Matters of Public Concern:

  • Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.

  • The First Amendment reflects a national commitment to uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues.

  • Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection.

• Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press/Matters of Private Concern:

  • Not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance.

  • First Amendment protections are often less rigorous when matters of purely private significance are at issue.

  • Restricting speech on purely private matters does not implicate the same constitutional concerns as limiting speech on matters of public interest.

• Boundaries of Public Concern Test:

  • The boundaries are not well-defined, but courts must ensure they do not become inadvertent censors.

• Definition of Public Concern:

  • Speech deals with matters of public concern when it relates to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.

  • It also includes subjects of legitimate news interest, i.e., subjects of general interest and of value and concern to the public.

• Relevance of Controversial Character:

  • The controversial nature of a statement does not determine whether it deals with a matter of public concern.

• Determining Public vs. Private Concern:

  • Courts must examine the content, form, and context of the speech, as revealed by the whole record.

• Scope and Extent of Review:

  • In First Amendment free speech cases, the Supreme Court must make an independent examination of the whole record.

• Factors in Determining Public or Private Concern:

  • No single factor is dispositive; courts must evaluate all circumstances of the speech, including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said.

• Picketing/Government Property and Facilities/Infliction of Emotional Distress:

  • Speech of church members picketing near a military funeral was of public concern and entitled to special First Amendment protection.

  • The picketers' signs related to broad societal issues, and the picketing occurred in a public place adjacent to a public street.

• Government Property and Events:

  • A public place adjacent to a public street occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection of speech.

• Streets and Highways:

  • Public streets are the archetype of a traditional public forum for First Amendment protection of speech.

• Absolute Nature of Right/Reasonableness:

  • Even protected speech may be subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech/Government Property and Events:

  • Speech at a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.

  • The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

• Particular Issues and Applications in General/Injurious Speech:

  • The point of all speech protection under the First Amendment is to shield choices of content that may be hurtful.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech:

  • Insulting and outrageous speech must be tolerated in public debate to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

• Picketing/Torts:

  • A military service member's father was not a captive audience at the funeral, so the captive audience doctrine did not apply.

• Offensive, Vulgar, Abusive, or Insulting Speech:

  • The First Amendment does not generally allow the government to decide which types of protected speech are offensive enough to require protection for unwilling listeners.

  • The burden is on the viewer to avoid further exposure by averting their eyes.

• Receipt of Information or Ideas; Listeners' Rights:

  • The government's ability to shut off discourse to protect others from hearing it depends on a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.

• Relation Between State and Federal Rights:

  • Courts should rely on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case when there are clashes between First Amendment protection of speech and state-law rights.

Syllabus Points

Timeline Context

• For 20 years, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has picketed military funerals.

  • Belief: God hates the U.S. for tolerance of homosexuality in the military.

  • Also condemns the Catholic Church.

Snyder Funeral Picketing

• Fred Phelps and six WBC parishioners picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder in Maryland.

  • Snyder was killed in Iraq, in the line of duty.

• The picketing site was on public land, 1,000 feet from the church.

  • Conducted according to guidance from local law enforcement.

• Picketers displayed signs with messages:

  • “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”

  • “Fags Doom Nations”

  • “America is Doomed”

  • “Priests Rape Boys”

  • “You're Going to Hell”

• The picketing lasted for about 30 minutes before the funeral.

Snyder's Lawsuit

• Matthew Snyder's father (Snyder) filed a lawsuit against Phelps, his daughters, and the church.

  • Claims: Intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.

• The Jury held Westboro liable for millions in compensatory and punitive damages.

Westboro's Defense

• WBC challenged the verdict, claiming excessive damages.

  • Sought judgment as a matter of law, based on First Amendment protection of speech.

District Court Ruling

• The Court reduced punitive damages but upheld the verdict.

Fourth Circuit Reversal

• The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that WBC's statements were protected by the First Amendment.

  • Statements were on matters of public concern.

  • Statements were not provably false.

  • Expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric.

Supreme Court Decision

• The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability in this case.

Key Arguments and Analysis

• First Amendment Defense: The Free Speech Clause can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50–51, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41

• Public vs. Private Concern: Whether the First Amendment protects WBC's speech depends on whether it is of public or private concern.

  • “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708

• Definition of Public Concern: Speech is of public concern if it relates to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community or is a subject of general interest and concern to the public.

  • Statement's controversial character is irrelevant.

• Content, Form, and Context: To determine whether speech is of public or private concern, the Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context’ ” of the speech, as revealed by the whole record.

  • Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593

• Content of Westboro's Signs: The content of WBC's signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters.

  • Issues highlighted: political and moral conduct of the United States, homosexuality in the military, scandals involving the Catholic clergy.

• Context of the Speech: The connection with Matthew Snyder's funeral cannot by itself transform the nature of WBC's speech.

  • The signs reflected WBC's condemnation of much in modern society.

  • WBC had been actively engaged in speaking on these subjects long before becoming aware of Matthew Snyder.

• Reasonable Time, Place, or Manner Restrictions: Even protected speech is still “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.”

  • Clark v. Community for Creative Non–Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221

• Captive Audience Doctrine: Snyder may not recover for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

  • The captive audience doctrine should not be expanded to the circumstances here. WBC stayed well away from the memorial service, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself.

• Civil Conspiracy: Because the First Amendment bars Snyder from recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress or intrusion upon seclusion (the allegedly unlawful activity Westboro conspired to accomplish), Snyder also cannot recover for civil conspiracy based on those torts.

Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion Highlights

• Peaceful Manner: Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property in a peaceful manner.

• Compliance: They picketed in full compliance with the guidance of local officials.

• Non-Disruptive Behavior: They did not disrupt Matthew Snyder's funeral.

• Protection of Hurtful Speech: The Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled. Therefore, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

Justice Breyer's Concurrence

• Picketing Regulations: States can sometimes regulate picketing, even on matters of public concern.

• Means of Communication: The constitutionally protected nature of the end (communicating views on a public matter) would not shield the use of unlawful, unprotected means.

• Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The dissent requires the Court to ask whether its holding unreasonably limits liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, to the point where a person might launch a verbal assault upon another, revealing intimate details while knowing it will cause severe emotional harm.

Justice Alito's Dissent

• Vicious Verbal Assault: The national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for vicious verbal assault.

• IIED Tort: Most jurisdictions permit recovery in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

• Narrow Tort: This is a very narrow tort with rigorous requirements.

• Attack on Matthew Snyder: Respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder as part of a well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention.

• Availability of Alternative Venues: Westboro could have chosen to stage their protest at countless locations other than Matthew’s funeral.

Notes on the Syllabus:

• The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499

Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion

• Issue:

  • Does the First Amendment protect the speech of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) from tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress when picketing at a military funeral?

• Rule:

  • The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects speech on matters of public concern.

  • This protection extends even to speech that is offensive or emotionally distressing, so long as it is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and does not fall into any other unprotected category.

  • The Court examines the content, form, and context of the speech to determine whether it addresses a matter of public concern.

• Application:

  • The Supreme Court applied the rule, finding that WBC's speech, though hurtful, was on matters of public concern.

  • The signs displayed by WBC related to broad issues of political and moral conduct, such as the U.S.'s tolerance of homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and the military.

  • The picketing took place on public land, and WBC complied with local law enforcement instructions.

  • The Court concluded that the speech, in its content, form, and context, addressed matters of public concern and was thus entitled to First Amendment protection.

• Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment shields WBC from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

  • The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision, which had reversed the District Court's ruling in favor of Snyder.

  • This ruling underscores the importance of protecting even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate remains uninhibited.