•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

101

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Historically, the United States Supreme Court has taken a morally neutral approach towards issues involving freedom of expression. Instead of evaluating the content or substance of the views being expressed, the Court has relied primarily upon formalistic time, place, and manner considerations to guide its judgment in such cases. The rationale, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of this judicial approach are vividly illustrated in Snyder v. Phelps-the Court's March 2011 ruling that patently hateful protests at military funerals are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Matthew Snyder was a heterosexual twenty-year-old, Marine Corps Lance Corporal who died fighting for his country in Al-Qa'im, Iraq. Fred Phelps, Sr. is the founder of the Westboro Church, a Baptist congregation in Topeka, Kansas composed mainly of his extended family. The Westboro Church is defined by hatefulness. Included among the targets of its rancor are homosexuals, the United States for tolerating homosexuals, the American military for defending the United States, and anyone or any religion that does not completely share its dogma. It especially loves to hate Catholicism. The church has chosen to publicize its messages by protesting at hundreds of funerals over the past twenty years. On March 10, 2006, Westboro congregants picketed Matthew Snyder's funeral at a Catholic cemetery in Westminster, Maryland, carrying placards that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God hates you," and "You are going to hell. l After a civil suit was brought by Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, a Federal District Court awarded Snyder millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against Westboro, finding that the church intentionally caused him psychological strain and distress. When the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the judgment, Mr. Snyder appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which, on March 2, 2011, issued its 8-1 ruling. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. Justice Robert's argued that Westboro's protests are clear examples of public speech, which occupy "the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values." While Westboro's messages "may fall short of refined social or political commentary," he admitted, "the issues they highlight-the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy are matters of public import."

Download

Share

COinS