Shirley Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Missouri, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21539

Shirley and Megan Phelps-Roper challenge Manchester, Missouri's amended funeral-protest ordinance limiting picketing and other disruptive protest within 300 feet of a funeral or burial site during the ceremony and for one hour before and after.
The district court held each version of the ordinance unconstitutional and granted injunctive relief and nominal damages; a panel affirmed, then the court en banc vacated it and held the final version constitutionally valid.
The ordinance prohibits only near-funeral protest; it does not ban funeral processions and includes no limits on speech content beyond proximity and timing.
Earlier Missouri statute and related challenges (including Nixon) raised questions about protecting mourners’ privacy and the reach of government interests beyond the home; Snyder addressed similar concerns in a different factual context.
The plaintiffs allege facial overbreadth and seek to enjoin enforcement as well as nominal damages, but the record shows no concrete demonstration in Manchester as to where or what they would display.
The court ultimately determines the current ordinance is a content-neutral time/place/manner regulation that serves a significant government interest and is narrowly tailored with ample alternative channels, making the facial challenge unsuccessful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing and mootness of the current ordinance	Phelps-Ropers have standing to challenge current ordinance; prior versions moot.	Chill and past versions still relevant; earlier challenges moot due to amendment.	Current ordinance challenge is justiciable; prior versions moot.
Whether the ordinance is content neutral or content based	Ordinance targets protest meaningfully tied to Phelps-Ropers’ messages; content based.	Ordinance applies to all disruptive conduct near funerals, regardless of content.	Ordinance is content neutral; applies regardless of message.
Appropriate level of scrutiny	As a content-neutral regulation, it should be subjected to strict scrutiny.	Content-neutral time/place/manner regulation warrants intermediate scrutiny.	Intermediate scrutiny applies.
Significant government interest in protecting funeral attendees' privacy	No sufficient interest beyond general dislike of protest; Snyder guidance is narrow.	Fundamental interest in protecting mourners’ privacy and dignity justifies restriction.	There is a significant government interest in protecting mourners’ privacy during funerals.
Narrow tailoring and ample alternative channels	A 300-foot buffer and one-hour window disproportionately burden speech with no sufficient alternatives.	Ordinance narrowly tailored given time/place focus and preserves other avenues for speech.	Ordinance is narrowly tailored and leaves ample alternative channels.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (content-based regulations presumptively invalid; viewpoint neutrality essential)
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (home/proximate privacy and public-order interests; narrowly tailored restrictions)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (content-neutral restrictions can protect unwelcome audiences in sensitive settings)
Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (residential/clinic privacy interests support tailored speech restrictions)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time/place/manner regulations must be narrowly tailored and leave alternative channels)
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) (buffer zone reviews require proximity-based tailoring to protect interests)
Kirkeby v. Furness, 92 F.3d 655 (1996) (limits on targeted picketing nearby homes; content neutrality and tailoring considerations)
Favish, National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (privacy interests of living relatives in memorial contexts)
Nixon v. City of Manchester, 545 F.3d 685 (2008) (initial analysis of government’s interest in protecting unwilling listeners and tailoring)