## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 31 97

__ __ __ __ __ _

Sh irl ey L. Phel ps -Ro pe r; * Meg an Ph el ps -Ro pe r, *

*
Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll ees , *

*

v. *

*
Ci ty of Man ch es te r, Mi ss ou ri, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s

* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Defen da nt - App el la nt

. * East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

*

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ * [PUBLISHED]

*
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*

Am ic us on Beh al f of

App el la nt

, *

*
Ch ris ti na W el ls ; Th om as Jef fers on *
Cen te r fo r th e Pro te ct io n o f Free * Exp res si on , *

*

Am ic i o n B eh al f of

App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 15 , 20 11
Fi le d: Octo be r 5, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _Befo re MUR PHY an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and READE, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Sh irl ey an d Meg an Ph el ps -Ro pe r br ou gh t th is Fi rs t Am en dm en t chal le ng e to

a Ma n c h e s te r, Mi ss ou ri or di na nc e th at reg ul at es pr ot es ts ne ar fu ne ral s. On cro ss

m ot io ns fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t c o u r t c on si de red th e or di na nc e as 1

or ig in al ly ad op te d an d a s twi ce am en de d. It ru le d in fav or of th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs , award in g th em

no m in al da m ag es an d e njo in in g e nf or cem en t o f th e o rd in an ce. The

Ci ty of Man ch e s t e r ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs la ck st an di ng to

ch al le ng e th e or di na nc e, th at th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs ' ch al le ng es to earl ie r ve rs io ns of th e

or di na nc e are m oo t, an d th at th e or di na nc e is a co ns ti tu ti on al ly va li d co nt en t ne ut ral

ti m e, pl ace, or m an ne r reg ul at io n. The Ph el ps -Ro pe rs res po nd th at M a n c h e s te r's

or di na nc e is un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r ou r co ur t's pr io r de ci si on in Ph el ps -Ro pe r v.
Nix on , 54 5 F .3d 68 5 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

The Ph el ps -Ro pe rs are m em be rs of th e W es tb or o Bap ti st Ch u r c h ( WB C),

whi ch be li ev es th at God is pu ni sh in g Am eri ca fo r to le rat in g h om os ex ua li ty. W BC

ex pr es se s its vi ews by pr ot es ti ng at fu ne ral s, in cl ud in g th os e of Am eri can so ld ie rs

. Its m em be rs ho ld si gn s w i t h mes sa ge s su ch as "Th an k God fo r Dead So ld ie rs " an d

"Go d Hate s You " at pr ot es ts st ag ed ne ar fu ne ral s. Sn y de r v. Ph el ps , 13 1 S. Ct

. 12 07

, 12 13 (20 11 ).

In 20 07 Man ch es te r ad op te d an or di na nc e in § 21 0.2 64 of it s m un ic ip al co de

reg ul at in g pr ot es ts at fu ne ral s in res po ns e to th e W BC's act iv it ie s. The or di na nc e was

am en de d twic e, an d it s fin al fo rm pr oh ib it s "pi ck et in g or oth er pro te st act iv it ie s .

. .

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-wit hi n th ree h u n d r e d ( 30 0) feet of an y res id en ce, cem et ery, fu ne ral ho m e, ch ur ch

,

synag og ue , or ot he r es t a b l i s hm en t du rin g or wit hi n on e (1 ) ho ur be fo re or on e (1 )

ho ur aft er t h e c o n d u c t i ng of an y act ua l fu ne ral or bu ria l se rv ic e at th at pl ace."

Man ch es te r's or di na nc e no w cl os el y res em bl es a si m il ar st at ut e th at th e Si xt h Ci rcu it

up he ld ov er Fi rs t Am en dm en t ch al le ng es in Ph e l p s

- R o p er v. St ric kl an d, 53 9 F.3 d

35 6, 3 73 (6t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Afte r th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs ch al le ng ed th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e M an ch es te r

or di na nc e, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th ey ha d st an di ng to br in g th ei r cl ai m s an d

th at th ei r ch al le ng es to earl ie r ve rs io ns of th e or di na nc e were no t m oo t. The co ur t

de ci de d t ha t t he sec on d and th ird ve rs io ns of th e o rd in an ce were co nt en t b as ed , bu t

th at ev en if th ey were co nt en t ne ut ral

, th ey wou ld ha ve st il l vi ol at ed th e Fi rs t

Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at each v e r s i o n vi ol at ed th e Fi rs t

Am en dm en t, pe rm an en tl y en joi n e d en fo rcem en t of th e or di na nc e, an d award ed

no m in al da m ag es to th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs

. Man ch es te r ch al le ng es al l of th es e de ci si on s

in it s ap pe al

.

W e ag ree th at th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs ha d st an di ng to ch al le ng e t h e o r d in an ce.

M an ch es te r's or di na nc e sp eci fic al ly ta rg et s th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs ' co nd uc t, Mi nn

. C i t i z e ns Co nc ern ed fo r Life v. Fed

. Elec ti on Co m m 'n, 11 3 F.3 d 12 9, 13 1 (8 th Ci r

. 19 97 ), an d Man ch es te r di d no t di sa vo w in te nt io ns to en fo r c e i t

. S e e St

. Pau l Area

Ch am be r of Co m

m erce v. Gaert ne r, 43 9 F.3 d 48 1, 48 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). The Ph el ps

Ro pe rs th us ha ve "s om e reas on in fear in g pr os ecu ti on " un de r th e or di na nc e. Bab bi tt

v. Uni te d Farm W or ke rs Nat'l Uni on , 44 2 U.S. 28 9, 30 2 (1 97 9)

. The ir ch al le ng es to

th e two earl ie r ve rs io ns of th e or di na nc e a r e mo o t

, ho wev er, be cau se Man ch es te r

am en de d th e or di na nc e in res po ns e to rel at ed jud ic ia l de ci si on s. See, e.g ., St ric kl an d,

53 9 F.3 d at 37 3. It can no t th eref or e reas on ab ly be co nc lu de d th at Man ch es te r m ig ht

no w r ei ns ta te pr ov is io ns in co nf li ct wit h th os e pr eced en ts

. See Epp v. Kerre y , 9 64

F.2 d 75 4, 75 5 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 92 ). Mo reo ve r, th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs co ul d ch al le ng e an y

un li ke ly rein st at em en t. Id

.

-3

-The on ly jus ti ci ab le qu es ti on be fo re th e co ur t at t h i s ti m e is whe th er

Man ch es te r's cu rren t or di na nc e vi ol at es t h e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d th at th e or di na nc e was a co nt en t ba se d reg ul at io n. W he th er an or di na nc e
is co nt en t ba se d is de te rm in ed by ex am in in g th e pl ai n m ean in g of it s te xt

. Nix on , 54 5

F.3 d at 69 1. Man ch es te r's or di na nc e pr oh ib it s "p ic ke ti ng " an d "o th er pr ot es t

act iv it ie s," whi ch it de fin es as co nd uc t "d is ru pt iv e or un de rta ke n to di sr up t or di st ur b

a fu ne ral or bu ria l se rv ic e." The or di na nc e do es no t fav or so m e to pi cs or vi ewp oi nt s

ov er ot he rs an d it "ap pl [ie s] e qu al ly t o a l l d e m on st rat or s, reg ard le ss of vi ewp oi nt ."

Hil l v. Co lo rad o, 53 0 U.S. 70 3, 71 9 (2 00 0) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. It is no t a "re gu la ti on

of sp eech " bu t rat he r "a reg ul at io n of th e pl aces whe re so m e sp eech m ay oc cu r." Id

. Tha t a co ur t m ay ne ed to co nd uc t a "cu rs or y ex am in at io n" of a s p e a k e r 's wor ds to

de te rm in e if sh e en ga ge d in pi ck e t i n g o r ot he r pr ot es ts reg ul at ed by Man ch es te r's

o r di na nc e do es no t tra ns fo rm th is ot he rwis e ne ut ral or di na nc e in to a co nt en t ba se d

reg ul at io n. Id

. at 72 1– 22

. The di st ric t co ur t th u s e r r e d i n co nc lu di ng th at th e

or di na nc e was a co nt en t b as ed reg ul at io n. Se e id . at 7 19 –2 2.

The di st ric t co ur t al te rn at iv el y he ld th at th e or d i n an ce co ul d no t su rv iv e
be cau se it was n ot "n arro wly ta il or ed to se rv e a si gn ifi can t go ve rn m en ta l in te res t."

Wa r d v

. R o c k Aga in st Rac is m , 49 1 U.S. 78 1, 79 1 (1 98 9)

. Rel y in g on Nix on , 54 5

F.3 d at 69 2, an d Olm er v. Cit y of Lin co ln

, 19 2 F.3d 11 76

, 11 82 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ), th e
di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Man ch es te r ha d no si gn ifi can t in te res t "i n pr ot ect in g

fu ne ral at te nd ees fro m un w a n t e d co m m un ic at io n." It reas on ed th at Olm er ha d

"u ne qu iv oc al ly refu se d to reco gn iz e th e go ve rn m en t's si g n i f i c a nt in te res t in

pr ot ect in g un w i l l i ng li st en ers ou ts id e th e res id en ti al co nt ex t." Nix on ha d in fact

co nc lu de d th at "'t he ho m e is di ffer en t,' an d, in ou r vi ew, un iq ue " an d th eref or e "o th er
lo cat io ns , ev en ch ur ch es , [co ul d no t] cl ai m th e s a m e le ve l of co ns ti tu ti on al ly

pr ot ect ed pr iv acy." 54 5 F.3 d at 69 2 (q uo ti ng Olm er, 19 2 F

. 3d at 11 82 .) W e

reco gn iz e th at th e Si xt h Ci rcu it cam e to a di ffer en t co nc lu si on in St ric kl an d, 53 9 F.3 d

at 36 2– 66

, in up ho ld in g an or di na nc e cl os el y res em bl in g th e on e at is su e he re, bu t we

ag ree t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t was req ui red to fol lo w ou r pr eced en t i n Ni xo n.

-4

-Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng in th e jud gm en t.

W hi le I co nc ur in th e jud gm en t, I writ e se pa rat el y be cau se th is cas e m ig ht be

an al y zed di ffer en tl y bu t fo r ou r de ci si on in Ph el ps -Ro pe r v. Nix on , 54 5 F.3 d 68 5 (8 th

Ci r. 20 08 ). Th ere, a pa ne l of ou r co ur t an al y zed a qu it e di ffer en t fu ne ral pr ot es t

st at ut e an d co nc lu de d th at Ph el ps -Ro pe r was "l ik el y to pr ov e an y in te res t th e st at e ha s

in pr ot ect in g fu ne ral m ou rn e r s f r o m un wan te d sp eech is ou twei gh ed by th e Fi rs t

Am en dm en t rig ht to free sp eech ." Id

. at 69 2. Rel y in g on Olm er v. Ci ty of Lin co ln

, 19 2 F.3 d 11 76

, 11 82 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ), th e pa ne l reas on ed th at "t he go ve rn m en t ha s no

co m pe ll in g in te res t in pr ot ect in g an in di vi du al fro m un wan te d sp eech ou ts id e of th e

res id en ti al co nt ex t." 54 5 F .3d at 6 92

.

The Man ch es te r fu ne ral pr ot es t st at ut e in th is cas e is si gn ifi can tl y di ffer en t

fro m th at in Nix on an d in fact qu it e li ke th at in Ph el ps -Ro pe r v. St ric kl an d, 53 9 F.3 d

35 6 (6 th Ci r. 20 08 ). In St ric kl an d, th e Si xt h Ci rcu it de te rm in ed th at th e go ve rn m en t

ha d "an im

po rta nt in te res t in th e pr ot ect io n of fu ne ral at te nd ees , be cau se a de ceas ed 's

su rv iv or s ha ve a pr iv acy rig ht 'in th e ch arac te r an d m em or y of th e de ceas ed .'" Id

. at

36 6. It re as on ed th at in di vi du al s " m ou rn in g t he lo ss of a lo ve d o ne sh are a pr iv acy rig ht si m il ar to in di vi du al s in th ei r ho m es or in di vi du al s en te rin g a m ed ic al faci li ty."

Id

. a t 3 6 4

– 65

. Tha t is be cau se "m ou rn ers can no t eas il y av oi d un wan te d pr ot es ts

wit ho ut sa cri fic in g th ei r rig ht to pa rta ke in th e fu ne ral or bu ria l se rv ic e." Id

. at 36 6.

W he th er th e Ci ty of Man ch es te r ha s a si gn ifi can t in te res t in reg ul at in g pr ot es ts

ne ar fu ne ral s is im

po rta nt in de al in g wit h th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s as se rte d by th e

Ph el ps -Ro pe rs

. The Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to free sp eech "i nc lu de s th e rig ht to

at te m pt to pe rs u a d e ot he rs to ch an ge th ei r vi ews , an d m ay no t be cu rta il ed si m pl y
be cau se th e sp eak er's m es sa ge m ay be of fen si ve to hi s au di en ce." Hil l v. Co lo rad o,

53 0 U.S. 70 3, 71 6 (2 00 0)

. Th e go ve rn m en t ha s no ge ne ral in te res t in pr ot ect in g

-5

-li st en ers fro m un welc om e sp eech at al l pl aces an d ti m es , id

., bu t th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t

rig ht to free sp eech is no t ab so lu te

. I t h a s l o ng be en reco gn iz ed th at "[t ]o en fo rce

f r e e d om of sp eech in di sr eg ard of th e rig ht s of ot he rs wou ld be ha rs h an d a r b i t r a r y

in it se lf." Kov acs v. Co op er , 3 3 6 U.S. 77

, 88 (1 94 9)

. Sp eech "i s no t eq ua ll y

pe rm is si bl e in al l pl aces an d at al l ti m es ." Fri sb y v. Sch ul tz

, 48 7 U.S. 47 4, 47 9
(1 98 8) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d i n Hi ll :

St at es an d m

un ic ip al it ie s pl ai nl y ha ve a su bs ta nt ia l in t e r e s t in

co nt ro ll in g th e act iv it y aro un d cert ai n pu bl ic an d pr iv at e pl aces

. Fo r

ex am pl e, we ha ve reco gn iz ed th e sp eci al go ve rn m en t al in te res ts

su rro un di ng sch oo ls , cou rth ou se s, p ol li ng pl aces , and pri va te ho m es

.

53 0 U.S. at 72 8 (c it at io ns om it te d)

.

In Nati on al Arch iv es & Rec or ds Adm in is tra ti on v. Fav is h, 54 1 U.S

. 1 5 7,

16 7– 68 (2 00 4)

, th e Co ur t co ns id ered th e so ci al an d cu lt ur al si gn ifi can ce of fu ne ral s

an d bu ria l rit es

. W hi le up ho ld in g a la w al lo win g fam il ie s to pr ev en t rel eas e un de r th e

Free do m of I nf or m at io n Act of "p ho to gr ap hs sh owi ng th e co nd it io n of [th ei r lo ve d

on e's ] bo dy at th e sc en e o f de at h," id . at 1 60 , th e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d:

Fam il y m em

be rs ha ve a pe rs on al st ak e in ho no rin g an d m ou rn in g th ei r
de ad an d ob

jecti ng to un warra nt ed pu bl ic ex pl oi ta ti on th at

, by in tru di ng

up on th ei r own gr ie f, te nd s to de gr ad e th e rit es an d res pe ct th ey se ek to

acco rd to th e d ecea se d p ers on who was o nc e th ei r own

.

Id

. at 16 8. The Co ur t em ph as iz ed th at by pr ev en ti ng rel eas e of p h o t o g r a ph s, th e

go ve rn m en t was pr ot ect in g th e "p riv acy of th e li vi ng " an d th e pr iv il eg e of su rv iv in g

fam il y m em

be rs "t o pr ot e ct th ei r feel in gs , an d to pr ev en t a vi ol at io n of th ei r own rig ht s in th e c h a r act er an d m em or y of th e de ceas ed ." Id

. at 16 8– 69 (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

.

-6

-The Su pr em e Co ur t fo un d a si gn ifi can t go ve rn m en ta l in te res t in pr ot ect in g th e

rig ht s of ci ti zen s in th ei r ho m es fro m un wan te d co m m un ic at io n, Fri sb y , 48 7 U.S. at

4 8 5

, an d la te r ex te nd ed th at in te res t to pr ot ect pa ti en ts en te rin g m ed ic al faci li ti es

. Hil l, 53 0 U.S. at 71 6. Fri sb y an d Hil l are us efu l gu id ep os t s , e s ta bl is hi ng th at th e

go ve rn m en t's in te res t in pr ot ect in g cap ti ve au di en ces wil l ha ve "s pe ci al fo rce" in th e
ho m e, se e Hil l, 53 0 U.S. a t 71 7, bu t th at it is no t l i mi t e d to th e res id en ti al co nt ex t.

Id

.

In Sn y de r v. Phel ps , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 20 7, 1 21 8 (2 01 1) , th e Co ur t s ug ge st ed th ere

are li ke ly ot he r lo cat io ns ou ts id e of th e ho m e an d he al th faci li ti es whe re th e

go ve rn m en t can pe r mi ss ib ly reg ul at e Fi rs t Am en dm en t act iv it ie s. In Sy nd er, th e

Co ur t was as ke d to co ns id er whe th er th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t sh ie ld ed W es tb or o Bap ti st

Ch ur ch fu ne ral pr ot es te rs fro m li ab il it y fo r cert ai n to rt cl ai m s. Id

. at 12 13

. It de ci de d

th at th os e pr ot es to rs co ul d no t be he ld li ab le u n d er a to rt th eo ry be cau se th ey ha d

be en pe a c efu ll y ex pr es si ng is su es of pu bl ic co nc ern wit ho ut vi ol at in g an y la w

reg ul at in g pr ot es ts at fu ne ral s. Id

. at 12 20

. The fu ne ral at te nd ees in Sy nd er were no t

cap ti ve to un wan te d co m

m un ic at io n be cau se th e m ai n area us ed by th e pr ot es to rs was

ap pr ox im at el y 10 00 feet fro m th e si te of th e fu ne ral

, th e at te nd ees co ul d se e no m or e

th an th e to ps of th e pi ck et si gn s, an d th e pi ck et in g di d no t in te rfer e wit h th e fu ne ral

. Id

. at 12 18 –2 0. The Co ur t in di cat ed

, ho wev er, th at pr ot es te rs ' "ch oi ce of whe re an d

whe n t o c o nd uc t [th ei r] pi ck et in g is no t be y on d th e Gov ern m en t's reg ul at or y

reac h— i t i s ' s ub

ject to reas on ab le ti m e, pl ace, or m an ne r res tri ct io ns '

. . . . " Id

. at

12 18 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

I res pe ct fu ll y su gg es t th at Sy nd er pr ov id es th e p ro pe r m et ho d o f an al y si s fo r
de ci di ng whe th er th e Man ch es te r or di na nc e is co nst itu tio na l. W as th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs '

ch oi ce of whe re an d whe n to co nd uc t th ei r pi ck et in g be y on d Man ch es te r's reg ul at or y

reac h? Did th e or di na nc e pl ace un reas on ab le ti m e, pl ace, or m an ne r res tri ct io ns on

th e Ph el ps -Ro pe rs ' pi ck et in g act iv it ie s? Sh ou ld fu ne ral at te nd ees be req ui red to

-7

-"u nd er

ta ke Hercu le an effo rts to es cap e th e caco ph on y of po li ti cal pr ot es ts "? Hil l, 53 0

U.S. at 7 16 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

The "v ul ne rab le ph y si cal an d em ot io na l con di ti on s," id

. at 72 9, are th e sa m e,

if no t gr eat er, fo r fu ne ral at te nd ees th an fo r a pa ti en t se ek i n g med ic al tre at m en t.

Man ch es te r's or di na nc e refl ect ed its sig nif ic an t int er es t in pr ote ct ing fu neral at te nd ees
be cau se su rv iv or s ha ve a rig ht to ho no r "t he ch arac te r an d m em or y of th e de ceas ed ."

S t r i c k la nd

, 53 9 F.3 d at 36 6. To co nc lu de ot he rwis e wou ld le av e fu ne ral at te n d e e s "p ract ic al ly he lp le ss to es cap e

. . . in te rfer en ce wit h [th ei r] pr iv acy," Kov acs , 33 6 U.S.

at 87

, at a m om en t whe n th ey "h av e a pe rs on al st ak e in ho no rin g an d m ou rn in g th ei r
de ad ." Nat 'l Arc hi ve s & Reco rd s Ad m in ., 54 1 U.S. at 16 8.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-