Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

The Supreme Court ruled that Gabriel Olivier can seek an injunction to stop future enforcement against him of Brandon's ordinance targeting protests outside a public amphitheater. His earlier conviction under the ordinance does not block that forward-looking civil rights claim.

Justice Kagan wrote the 9–0 opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.

The Court ruled 9-0. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson; no concurrences or dissents are listed.

Majority

Kagan

Roberts

Thomas

Alito

Sotomayor

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Barrett

Jackson

“Olivier’s suit seeking purely prospective relief—an injunction stopping officials from enforcing an ordinance in the future—can proceed, notwithstanding Olivier’s prior conviction.”

People previously punished under a law may still ask a federal court to stop officials from enforcing that law against them in the future. For example, a protester with an earlier conviction can seek protection against another enforcement action.

Lower courts must allow Olivier's forward-looking claim to proceed under this rule. City officials and others enforcing similar laws may face injunction requests from people previously convicted under those laws.

The Court said Olivier may seek an injunction against future enforcement of the ordinance. His prior conviction does not automatically bar that claim.

People previously convicted under a law may seek protection from future enforcement. Local governments may need to defend such laws against injunction requests.

Lower courts will continue Olivier's request for prospective relief. They must apply the Supreme Court's rule that Heck does not bar this type of claim.