The Inconvenient Truth about Offensive Funeral Protests

Saturday, October 09, 2010 - 12:00 AM

All week, I've been listening to the coverage of the "funeral protest" case, Snyder v Phelps

Even though the Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday, and even though it is one of only two First Amendment cases this term, I hadn't planned to comment; but the old law teacher in me just can't keep silent anymore. I simply have to weigh in on two things: (1) misreporting of the issues in the case, and (2) the related oversimplification of the possible outcome.

The Issues

Most outlets have reported the story as one that pits the free speech rights of a "whacko preacher" (Phelps) against the privacy rights of the sympathetic father of a fallen marine (Snyder).

Not to be a stickler, but in law, which issues are at issue will affect the ultimate outcome. The case is about the First Amendment; but privacy, as a constitutional matter, isn't really on the table, as much as supporters of Snyder might want it to be there.

For lawyers, and especially for Supreme Court Justices, whether a party is "whacko" or "sympathetic" is entirely irrelevant. Whether we take issue with their characterizations of the parties or not, most outlets are missing the real legal issues in the case.

It is true that Snyder v Phelps is about free speech. It is true that the preacher and his followers picketed the funeral of Matthew Snyder, a marine killed in Iraq, for which the marine's father sued the church and its pastor. But getting lost in the coverage is this key fact: The whole case started when Mr. Snyder sued. He brought a civil case. He claimed severe emotional distress caused by (1) the picketing of the deceased marine's funeral, and (2) the posting a cruel and mean-spirited diatribe about the Snyder family on the church's website. Of course, Mr. Snyder had every right to sue. This is America, after all. And the behavior of the pastor was, arguably, not civil; thus the civil lawsuit. But — and here is the main point — Snyder did not raise any issues of constitutional law.  He sued for money damages. And he won. Millions.

The constitutional issues came up on appeal, when the preacher raised a big red white and blue flag. That's because, like it or not, this is a classic First Amendment case, and preacher Phelps is the one with the Constitution on his side. We balance Mr. Snyder's freedom from tortuous interference with his son's funeral (not a constitutionally protected right) against the right to free speech (the very first protection enumerated in the Bill of Rights).  

Snyder's is not really a privacy case, though he may now try to frame it as such. Instead, the Justices will have to decide whether the protest, however contemptible, was protected by the First Amendment, or whether the father's right to freedom of religion and assembly (the funeral) prevails. Snyder wisely raises "freedom of religion" and "freedom of assembly" before the Court, because those are the only reasonably relevant constitutionally protected freedoms he can now raise in response to the preacher's solid case.

The Outcome

All that being said, I’m not sure the Supreme Court will see it that way. Unlike almost everyone else I've heard talking about the case, I don't think it's at all clear that the Court will find for Phelps and his freedom of speech.

If the late William Rehnquist were still Chief Justice, I am quite confident that free speech would win the day. For all his conservative leanings in other areas, Rehnquist was true to the First Amendment. Under his leadership, a majority of justices would recognize that, as unpleasant as protest can make our otherwise civilized society, it is part of the democratic process. The funeral was not disrupted. Snyder was free to assemble. The funeral went on.

But the Roberts Court is, thus far, much more conservative. This Court might just override First Amendment rights in favor of other interests. The Roberts Court has already allowed, for example, a greater role for religion in public life, suggesting a willingness to tinker with First Amendment doctrine. Moreover, nothing in their questions at oral argument this week gave any indication of support for free speech. If anything, the Justices seemed uniformly skeptical of Phelps' arguments. Finally, and most disconcerting, is the Justices' decision to take the case at all; it makes Court-watchers wonder, "Why? Why take the case at all? Unless to unsettle settled law…”

I, for one, do not think it will be a slam dunk, by any means. I am far from certain the Court will rule for the "Whacko Preacher," though I believe they should. If they don’t, his family unwittingly will have undermined one of the very rights Marine Lance Cpl. Snyder died to protect and preserve.

Jami Floyd is a broadcast journalist and legal analyst for cable and network news, and is a frequent contributor to WNYC Radio. She is former advisor in the Clinton administration and served as a surrogate for the Obama campaign on legal and domestic policy issues.


More in:

Comments [5]


Ms. Floyd, I listened to your dialogue with Brian Leher this morning on the case. While I would agree with your reasoning regarding Phelp's right to make a jerk of himself, and the speech being protected, what about the expectation of privacy on the part of Snyder? The question is whether the Roberts' court will consider unenumerated rights in the Ninth Amendment granting relief to Snyder. Granted, "originalists" will have a hard time with the argument.

Oct. 13 2010 04:09 PM
Ryan from Manhattan

I wonder if this doesn't cause anyone else to consider what constitutionally protected privacy would look like? Is it time to craft an amendment to protect families like the Snyders in their circumstance, as well as citizens against surveillance, data mining etc.?
I'm just spitballing... I'd love for an expert like Ms. Floyd to weigh in.

Oct. 13 2010 11:57 AM
William Bednarz from Jersey City New Jersey

I'm a nobody - I like being a nobody . . . You can not yell FIRE in a crowded threater . . . A Soldier that fought and died for our country deserves the same RESPECT . . Politcally INCORRECT and that would also be prying into their private lives. . .
. . RESPECT is something I do not have for these people / nor will I have any for any court that rules in their favor to disrupt an honorabe funeral of a fallen soldier. . .

Oct. 10 2010 04:05 PM
Mirel from Centreville ,VA


You are not just right !

It might be your opinion what you wrote but the case is about the 1st Amendment. The privacy issue is a falsified one, is not based on fact but on propganda.

Please just listent the arguments from Wednesday. The arguments shows how fragile is the privacy case and how strong, facts based is the 1st Amendment case.

Jami, you are wrong! Good people of America, common sense people understand that this is a 1st Amendment issue. The people of US are not stupid to swollow all the liberal media propaganda will place in news.

The facts are strong; this is a 1st Amendment right issue. Will the Supreme Court rule against the American Constitutional right or for it.

I am positive the rule will flagg the Contitution's 1st Ammendment as untouchable.

Jami, you had a completly wrong approach!

Just read and stay informed and do not accept mind control!

Respectful, in a free Country,

Mirel Tepes

Oct. 09 2010 07:34 AM
Annie Parrish from San Diego, California

I am president of the San Diego Legal Secretaries Association, and we publish a monthly bulletin of content related to the legal field. I would like permission to include your article on Snyder v. Phelps in our November bulletin. I thought it was a well-written, concise article that succinctly presented both sides of the issues. San Diego has a large military presence, and I think our readers would be interested in this article.

I thank you for your consideration of my request.

Annie S. Parrish, CCLS
President, San Diego Legal Secretaries Association

Oct. 09 2010 12:41 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


About It's A Free Blog

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a blog, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at



Supported by