Supreme Court Denies Review In School Board Prayer and Funeral Picketing Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Humanist Association v. Birdville Independent School District, (Docket No. 17-178, cert. denied 11/27/2017). (Order List).  In the case, the 5th Circuit upheld a school board's practice of opening its meetings with presentations from students, which often involve a prayer.  It held that legislative prayer cases, not the decisions regarding school prayer, govern this situation. (See prior posting.)

The Supreme Court today also denied review in Phelps-Roper v. Ricketts, (Docket No. 17-427, cert. denied 11/27/2017). (Order List).  In the case the 8th Circuit upheld Nebraska's Funeral Picketing Law against both facial and as-applied challenges brought by members of the Westboro Baptist Church. (See prior posting.)

8th Circuit Upholds Nebraska's Funeral Picketing Law

In Phelps-Roper v. Ricketts, (8th Cir., Aug. 11, 2017), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Nebraska's Funeral Picketing Law against both facial and as-applied challenges brought by members of the Westboro Baptist Church.  WBC has historically picketed military funerals-- which its members consider "patriotic hoopola"-- with anti-gay messages and other messages about national policies that WBC considers opposed to Biblical teachings.  The challenged Nebraska law prohibits picketing within 500 feet of a cemetery, mortuary, or church beginning one hour before and ending two hours after the start of a funeral. In upholding the law, the court concluded:

The rights of all speakers, including Phelps-Roper and others at funerals, to publically express their beliefs are protected by the First Amendment—but are not absolute....  Mourners, because of their vulnerable physical and emotional conditions, have a privacy right not to be intruded upon during their time of grief.... NFPL strikes a balance between these competing interests of law-abiding speakers and unwilling listeners in a way that is not facially unconstitutional. We likewise find that Phelps-Roper has failed to demonstrate that the NFPL was applied to her in an unconstitutional manner.

Omaha World-Herald reports on the decision.