First Amendment on Trial in Snyder v. Phelps

Quite possibly the most attention-grabbing case on the Supreme Court docket for this term is that of Snyder v. Phelps. A few basic facts of the case: the Westboro Baptist Church has made itself known throughout the U.S. for its protests at soldiers’ funerals. Albert Snyder, the father of late Marine Matthew Snyder, sued the Phelps clan for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the case has now worked its way through the court system to its final destination, the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the case is the conflict between the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and what rights, if any, the grieving have to be spared emotional distress at their loved ones’ funerals. Whether or not Matthew Snyder should be considered a “public figure” is a key factor in the case, since the Supreme Court previously ruled that public figures could not be awarded damages for emotional distress in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. This seems to be the issue troubling the justices the most at the moment, since if they find in Albert Snyder’s favor it could open the floodgates to countless future lawsuits of a similar nature.

In an increasingly rare sign of bipartisan agreement, Albert Snyder has received support from 42 senators, including both the majority leader, Harry Reid, and minority leader, Mitch McConnell. The senators’ brief emphasizes Matthew Snyder’s status as a veteran, rather than the First Amendment aspect of the case. To that end, they point out preexisting statues in forty-six states regulating picketing and protestors at military funerals. These statutes are valid under the First Amendment because they both “serve a significant governmental interest” and “leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information,” and could make a difference in the Court’s decision.

While the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church are clearly despicable by almost any moral standard other than their own, the justices are walking a fine line in this case. The emotional appeal of Snyder’s case is impossible to ignore, but they must be able to set that aside and make upholding the Constitution their only goal.