Supreme Court Summary Case: Snyder v. Phelps

Supreme Court Summary

Case: Snyder v. Phelps

Docket Number: 09-751

Petitioner: Albert Snyder

Respondent: Fred W. Phelps, Sr.

Facts of the Case:

The family members of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against the members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Louisiana. The members of the church had picketed at Snyder's funeral. The family alleged that the church members were guilty of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentionally inflicting emotional distress to the Snyders. The U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million. The U.S. Court of Appeals said that the ruling violated the 1st Amendment right to religious expression.

Constitutional Issues in the Case:

The case was a discussion of the First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religious expression, even in cases where the speech is perhaps distasteful.

The Decision of the Case:

The Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 in favor of Phelps. Judge Alito was the one dissenting opinion.

The rational of the opinion of the court:

The Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the protestors in this case. They stated that even though the people could be against what the protestors did and find it distasteful, they were protected under the First Amendment.

Reasons for Dissent:

Alito's dissent was based on the opinion that although freedom of speech and expression is protected by the Constitution, the amendment "is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

Significance of the Case:

The First Amendment has been part of the Bill of Rights since the creation of the Constitution in 1789. It was created to ensure that people would be able to express their ideas, whether they be political or religious, without fear of repercussion from the government. The Amendment would create a country where people could practice their own religion without fear of persecution like their ancestors did in England. The Amendment has protected the country from descending into various forms of censorship. Members of the press can publish information and opinions about political leaders and others without being stifled should their opinion make someone in the political arena look bad. However, there is also a darker side to the First Amendment. The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech has been used to ensure that books about pedophilia and child molestation can be published even if they are designed to enflame. Anti-Semitic and racist speeches can be uttered in public because they are protected. The First Amendment gives people the freedom to say whatever they wish. In recent times, this has been the only part of the Amendment to matter. Some argue that there should be a caveat to the First Amendment. Yes, people can say what they wish or congregate peacefully or print the truth, but they must also be held accountable for their actions. Freedom should be equally met with responsibility. That was what this case was about. The court ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church had the right to protest at the funeral and make statements comparing the fallen soldier to a murderer. Justice Alito's dissention shows that some people are beginning to wonder if there should be limitations to the First Amendment.