Supreme Court Decides Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

On March 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, No. 24-993, holding that First Amendment claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief are not barred by the Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), notwithstanding a prior criminal conviction under the challenged law.

Olivier is a street preacher in Mississippi who was convicted in municipal court for violating a city ordinance when protesting in front of an amphitheater in the City of Brandon. In 2019, the City adopted an ordinance that requires “all individuals or groups engaging in ‘protests’ or ‘demonstrations,’ at around the time events were scheduled, to stay within a designated area” when protesting near the amphitheater. Olivier did not appeal his conviction, paid a $304 fine, served one year of probation, and served no prison time.

Olivier later filed this lawsuit in federal court, alleging “that the city ordinance violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by consigning him (and other speakers) to the amphitheater’s out-of-the-way protest area.” As a remedy, Olivier sought a declaration that the city ordinance violates the First Amendment, and an injunction preventing city officials from enforcing the ordinance in the future. The City responded that the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Heck v. Humphrey barred Olivier’s suit from going forward because “a person previously convicted of violating a statute cannot challenge its constitutionality under § 1983 because success in the suit would cast doubt on the prior conviction’s correctness.” Olivier replied that his suit could go forward, because “Heck does not preclude a suit seeking wholly prospective relief, rather than relief relating to the prior conviction.”

The District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the City, viewing Heck as precluding any § 1983 claim that, if successful, would necessarily undermine the underlying criminal conviction. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, but eight of 17 judges dissented, with the dissenting judges viewing Heck as barring only retrospective use of § 1983 to collaterally attack a criminal conviction, rather than lawsuits seeking prospective relief.

The Supreme Court reversed. It relied on prior decisions in Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) and Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), which drew a line between Heck-type claims (where lawsuits seeking to undermine a prior conviction were barred), and those seeking forward-looking relief (where such lawsuits could go forward). The Supreme Court concluded that, unlike in Heck where success of the § 1983 claim “rested on proof discrediting his conviction,” Olivier’s suit is seeking wholly forward-looking relief. In other words, Olivier’s lawsuit could go forward because it did not “collaterally attack” his prior conviction. He merely wished to challenge the ordinance on a going-forward (prospective) basis.

Justice Kagan delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.