djplong, from what I have read, and my limited understanding of the law, here is the argument going before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The case is based on the Sept. 24, 2009, reversal by the United States Court of Appeals of an Oct. 31, 2007, jury verdict and post-jury verdict decision of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The main thrust of the reversal targeted the liability of the Phelps' (WBC) and the monatary part of the verdict. It turned into a case of placing one person's Constitutional protected rights over another person's Constitutional protected rights. The right to peaceable assembly (to grieve and bury and loved one) over freedom of speech (the WBC).


When I copy and paste from the petions brief, it comes out weird like the following. Sorry, but it is readable. I'm also too lazy to correct it. You can read the brief at the link below.

Starting at page 64 of the brief filed:

"eVEN THE PHELPSES DO NOT GENUINELY DISPUTE THAT,
BY TARGETING THEIR PROTESTS AT mR. sNYDER, THEY
DISRUPTED HIS PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND MOURNING PROCESS.
aS A CONSEQUENCE, WHEN THE FOURTH ¢IRCUIT IMMUNIZED
THE PHELPSES FROM LIABILITY, IT NECESSARILY CHOSE TO
SUBORDINATE mR. sNYDER’S FIRST aMENDMENT RIGHTS OF
FREE EXERCISE AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY TO THE PHELPSES’ FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS. sUCH A WHOLESALE PROMOTION OF THE FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS OF ONE PARTY WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR THE
FREE EXERCISE AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY RIGHTS OF ANOTHER
HAS NO SUPPORT IN THE ¢ONSTITUTION."

The petitioner in the Supreme Court case is Albert Snyder, the father of the deceased US Marine Matthew Snyder and the respondents are Fred Phelps Sr. et al (First Baptist Church, Inc.; Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis, Shirley Phelps-Roper, and several John and Jane Doe defendants-appellants). All Phelps family members and minor children family members also. That is usually the extent of the protesters, about six people.

"tHE PHELPSES HAVE ARGUED, AND THE FOURTH ¢IRCUIT
HELD, THAT THE dISTRICT ¢OURT’S FAILURE TO DIRECT A VERDICT
IN THEIR FAVOR VIOLATED THEIR FIRST aMENDMENT FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS. bY THE SAME TOKEN, HOWEVER, THE FOURTH
¢IRCUIT’S DECISION TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR THE PHELPSES ON
FIRST aMENDMENT GROUNDS CONSTITUTES GOVERNMENT
ACTION THAT ADVERSELY AFFECTS mR. sNYDER’S FIRST
aMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE EXERCISE AND FREEDOM OF
ASSEMBLY. bY IMMUNIZING OBTRUSIVE CONDUCT UNDER THE
GUISE OF FREE SPEECH, THE FOURTH ¢IRCUIT’S RULE WOULD
ALLOW UNINVITED, ANTAGONISTIC INDIVIDUALS TO INFRINGE
ANOTHER CITIZEN’S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREEDOMS
AND LEAVE THE VICTIM WITH NO LEGAL RECOURSE.
rATHER THAN SIMPLY ELEVATING THE PHELPSES’ FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS BY GRANTING ABSOLUTE PROTECTION TO THEIR
EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT, THE ¢OURT WAS REQUIRED TO BALANCE
THOSE RIGHTS AGAINST mR. sNYDER’S RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE
AND ASSEMBLY. tHIS ¢OURT’S TREATMENT OF THE PRIVACY
INTEREST IS INSTRUCTIVE ON THIS POINT. aS DISCUSSED ABOVE,
WHERE A PERSON’S FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE INFRINGING
ANOTHER’S PRIVACY RIGHTS, THE ¢OURT HAS ALLOWED THOSE
SPEECH RIGHTS TO BE CURTAILED “DEPENDENT UPON A SHOWING
THAT SUBSTANTIAL PRIVACY INTERESTS ARE BEING INVADED IN
AN ESSENTIALLY INTOLERABLE MANNER.” eRZNOZNIK V. ¢ITY OF
JACKSONVILLE, 422 U.s. 205, 209, (1975) (QUOTING ¢OHEN
V. ¢ALIFORNIA, 403 U.s. 15, 21 (1971)); SEE ALSO HILL V.
¢OLORADO, 530 U.s. 703, 716 (2000). tHE CASE FOR
PROTECTING AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHTS TO EXERCISE HIS RELIGION
AND TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE AT A FUNERAL SERVICE IS EVEN
STRONGER. iNDEED, THE FOUNDERS CHOSE TO PLACE THESE
RIGHTS ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH BY
LISTING ALL THREE PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST aMENDMENT."


Here's the part I love:

"tHE PARTY AGAINST WHOM CIVIL DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT
SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN ACTIONS THAT INFRINGE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME,
CLOAKING SUCH ACTIONS WITH THE IMPREGNABILITY AFFORDED
BY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. tO QUOTE JUSTICE HOLMES,
“THE RIGHT TO SWING (ONE’S) FIST ENDS WHERE THE OTHER
MAN’S NOSE BEGINS.” JUSTICE HOLMES’ NOTION OF BALANCING
FREEDOMS IS INSTRUCTIVE. oNE’S RIGHT OR FREEDOM ENDS
WHERE IT CONFLICTS WITH OR INFRINGES THE RIGHT OR FREEDOM
OF ANOTHER."


http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...Petitioner.pdf