Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, Inc. v. Joyce
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3626
8th Cir.2015Background
- Missouri enacted the House of Worship Protection Act prohibiting disturbing a house of worship by profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, near it as to disturb worship.
- Act defines house of worship broadly and classifies violations as misdemeanor and felony punishments by number of offenses.
- Plaintiffs SNAP, Call to Action, Biersmith, and Hesemann protest outside churches against clerical abuse and advocate reforms; they seek to reach church leaders and parishioners.
- Plaintiffs allege the Act chills speech and curtails expressive activity near worship spaces without showing actual disruptions.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appeal, contending the statute is content-based and impermissibly restricting speech near worship.
- Record shows no arrests or proven disruption of services; plaintiffs acknowledge intent to communicate messages to targeted audiences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Act content based and subject to strict scrutiny? | Biersmith/ SNAP: statute suppresses profane or indecent content. | State: regulation is time/place/manner aimed at disruptions near worship. | Yes; statute is content based and fails strict scrutiny. |
| Does the Act regulate speech near houses of worship in a permissible way under First Amendment? | Speech near worship is protected; content-based ban chills expression. | Act protects worship from disruption and preserves order. | Content-based restrictions near worship are unconstitutional; not narrowly tailored. |
| Does the Act survive strict scrutiny given alternative measures to protect worship access? | No evidence of disruptions; alternatives exist (noise regulations). | Need to curb profane/rude content to protect worshipers. | Not narrowly tailored; alternatives undermine necessity of content-based ban. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (Supreme Court, 1971) (prohibition of offensive conduct violates free speech)
- Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1988) (content-based restrictions tied to audience impact fail)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (Supreme Court, 2000) (content neutral time, place, and manner distinction)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (Supreme Court, 2014) (content-based restrictions require scrutiny of speech content)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (Supreme Court, 1989) (desecration speech protected; audience disapproval not a basis to suppress)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (Supreme Court, 1992) (content-based prohibitions raise strict scrutiny concerns)
- Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, 697 F.3d 678 (8th Cir., 2012) (content-neutral time/place restrictions differ from content-based bans)
- Olmer v. City of Lincoln, 192 F.3d 1176 (8th Cir., 1999) (protected picketing; abstract governmental interest in free exercise not enough)