Bible Believers v. Wayne County
805 F.3d 228
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- The Bible Believers, a self-described Christian evangelist group led by "Israel," attended Dearborn’s 2012 Arab International Festival and carried signs and a severed pig’s head while proselytizing anti‑Islam messages on public sidewalks.
- A predominantly youthful Muslim crowd reacted with jeering and then escalating physical assaults (bottles, eggs, milk crates); video shows police intermittently present but largely not suppressing the hecklers until they confronted the Bible Believers.
- Deputy Chiefs Richardson and Jaafar, after consulting Wayne County Corporation Counsel, warned the Bible Believers they would be cited for disorderly conduct if they did not leave; officers escorted them out and later stopped their van and issued a traffic citation.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the First Amendment (free speech and free exercise) and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection); district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Sixth Circuit en banc reversed.
- The en banc majority held the WCSO effectuated a "heckler’s veto" by removing and silencing the speakers in response to a hostile crowd without using less‑restrictive means to protect the speakers; it found municipal liability (Monell) based on Corporation Counsel’s role and rejected Glasson’s good‑faith shielding to the extent inconsistent with later precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did police violate the First Amendment by silencing speakers in response to a hostile crowd (heckler’s veto)? | Israel: police cut off protected speech and effectuated a heckler’s veto instead of protecting speakers from hecklers. | Wayne Cty: action was content‑neutral public‑safety policing; officers removed speakers for safety and lacked manpower to protect them. | Court: removal was content‑based suppression in response to audience hostility — a heckler’s veto — and violated the First Amendment; strict scrutiny applies and defendants failed the least‑restrictive‑means requirement. |
| Did defendants violate the Free Exercise Clause by preventing religious proselytizing? | Israel: proselytizing was sincere religious conduct; removal burdened free exercise. | Wayne Cty: same public‑safety justification as for free speech. | Court: Free exercise claim succeeds on same basis as free speech — government impermissibly burdened religiously motivated conduct. |
| Equal Protection — discriminatory treatment vs other festival speakers? | Israel: county treated them differently because their views provoked objections, burdening a fundamental right. | Wayne Cty: actions were neutral safety enforcement. | Court: disparate treatment based on viewpoint (content) violated equal protection; strict scrutiny applied and failed. |
| Qualified immunity and municipal liability (Monell) | Israel: officers and county are liable; precedent (e.g., Gregory, Glasson) made the prohibition against heckler’s veto clear. | Richardson/Jaafar: law not clearly established re: removing speakers for their safety amid violent crowd; County: no final‑policy decision or municipal custom. | Court: Deputy Chiefs violated clearly established law (denying qualified immunity); Wayne County liable because Corporation Counsel (a final policymaker) advised and authorized the removal, so Monell liability attached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) (offensive religious/political speech protected)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (religious proselytizing protected despite hostile reaction)
- Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) (speech that stirs unrest is not automatically punishable)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (test for incitement to imminent lawless action)
- Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951) (upheld conviction where speaker intended to incite crowd; historically discussed in heckler’s veto context)
- Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969) (convictions for peaceful demonstrators reversed; police may not punish speakers because of hostile onlookers)
- Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) (peaceful protestors cannot be punished merely because their views attract a hostile crowd)
- Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) (constitutional protection for peaceful expression despite hostile audience)
- Glasson v. City of Louisville, 518 F.2d 899 (6th Cir. 1975) (police duty not to effectuate a heckler’s veto; discussed as precedent and partially overruled on the good‑faith point)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for constitutional violations caused by policy/decision of final policymaker)