Phelps v. Powers
63 F. Supp. 3d 943
S.D. Iowa2014Background
- Petitioners Margie J. Phelps, Elizabeth M. Phelps, and Timothy B. Phelps are Westboro Baptist Church members who protest publicly, including demonstrations involving the U.S. flag.
- During Red Oak, Iowa protests, Petitioners allegedly mishandled flags and faced warnings about enforcing Iowa flag statutes.
- Elizabeth Phelps allegedly was told the flag-desecration statutes would be enforced during a July 2010 funeral protest; law enforcement allegedly instructed not to display or touch the flag in certain ways.
- No Petitioners were arrested or charged; Petitioners allege their First Amendment rights have been chilled and fear future prosecution.
- Petitioners challenge three Iowa statutes: flag desecration (718A.1A), flag misuse (723.4(6)), and enforcement (718A.1A) as amended; they seek summary judgment claiming unconstitutionality.
- The Court considers standing, vagueness, overbreadth, and as-applied challenges, along with injunctive relief requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: injury-in-fact sufficiency | Phelps has an injury-in-fact and standing. | Phelps lacks concrete or imminent injury; feared prosecution is speculative. | Phelps has constitutional standing. |
| Void-for-vagueness claim | Statutes are void for vagueness as applied to protected speech. | Plaintiffs failed to plead vagueness; not properly raised at summary judgment. | Off the table; not considered. |
| First Amendment overbreadth | Flag desecration and misuse statutes are facially overbroad and chill protected speech. | Statutes have legitimate applications and can be narrowed. | Statutes are unconstitutionally overbroad as drafted. |
| Readily susceptible limiting construction | Statutes could be read to exclude expressive conduct. | Courts should not read limiting constructions absent state interpretation. | No readily available limiting construction to save the statutes; facially overbroad. |
| First Amendment Free Exercise | Statutes burden religious exercise by mandating respectful treatment of the flag. | Statutes regulate conduct, not religion; need not reach if overbreadth controls. | Not necessary to decide after overbreadth ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Milligan, 479 F. Supp. 2d 995 (S.D. Iowa 2007) (precedent on vagueness and amendments to statutes)
- Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2014) (overbreadth with respect to flag statute similar to here)
- Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (U.S. 2003) (overbreadth framework: substantial amount of protected speech)
- United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1990) (flag desecration protected as speech; state interest limited)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1992) (fighting words doctrine; viewpoint discrimination limits)
- Waterman, 190 N.W.2d 809 (Iowa 1971) (illustrative Iowa flag cases and legitimate applications)
- International Association of Firefighters of St. Louis v. City of Ferguson, 283 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2002) (First Amendment injury in fact context for chilling effects)
- Johnson v. Eichman, 491 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1989) (flag as symbolic expression protected speech)