Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Mo.
658 F.3d 813
8th Cir.2011Background
- Phelps-Ropers challenge Manchester, Missouri funeral-protest ordinance
- Ordinance prohibits picketing or other protests within 300 feet of residences and funeral sites within 1 hour before/after funerals
- District court ruled for Phelps-Ropers: standing present, earlier versions moot, current version likely unconstitutional
- Manchester appeals: standing, mootness of earlier versions, and current ordinance as content-neutral time/place/manner regulation
- Court evaluates current ordinance under content-neutrality framework and government interests in protecting funeral attendees
- Snyder v. Phelps discussed as context for location-based regulation and time/place/manner analysis
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Phelps-Ropers have standing to challenge the ordinance? | Phelps-Ropers fear enforcement under the ordinance | Manchester contends no standing due to lack of injury in fact | Yes, standing exists |
| Are challenges to earlier versions moot after amendments? | Earlier versions remain contestable despite amendments | Amendments moot any challenge to earlier versions | Earlier versions moot; only current ordinance preserved |
| Is the current Manchester ordinance a content-based regulation? | Text may target certain viewpoints or content | Neutral on its face, targets time/place/manner, not content | Not content-based; applies to all demonstrators |
| If not content-based, is the ordinance narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest? | Regulation may be overbroad and unnecessary | Protects funeral attendees' privacy and safety, a significant interest | Yes, supports regulation; district court erred in finding otherwise |
| Does Snyder v. Phelps guide the proper analysis for the ordinance? | Follow Snyder's approach to location and audience considerations | Apply standard content-neutral time/place/manner review | Snyder informs the approach; current ordinance passes content-neutral review |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Shrink, 545 F.3d 685, 545 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2008) (content-based vs. content-neutral distinction and home-rights context)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (time/place/manner regulation near sensitive locations)
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1988) (special force of protecting captive audiences; regulation of voice around homes)
- Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1949) (speech not equally permissible in all places/times)
- National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (privacy of living and dignity concerns in death/ memorial contexts)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (S. Ct. 2011) (recognizes government interest in regulating protests outside funerals; location matters)
- Strickland v. Strickland, 539 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2008) (funeral attendees' privacy interests support regulation)
- Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2008) (articulates balancing of funeral-protest interests under First Amendment)
- Olmer v. City of Lincoln, 192 F.3d 1176 (8th Cir. 1999) (home privacy/interest in protecting listeners context)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1979) (standing and injury-in-fact principles for association-based claims)