Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

Cite as:  562 U. S. ____ (2011) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

The funeral procession passed within 200 to 300 feet of 
the  picket  site.    Although  Snyder  testified  that  he  could 
see the tops of the picket signs as he drove to the funeral, 
he  did  not  see  what  was  written  on  the  signs  until  later 
that night,  while watching a news broadcast covering the 
event.  Id., at 2084–2086.1 

B 
Snyder  filed  suit  against  Phelps,  Phelps’s  daughters,
and the Westboro Baptist Church (collectively Westboro or 
the  church)  in  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the 
District  of  Maryland  under  that  court’s  diversity  jurisdic-
tion.  Snyder  alleged  five  state  tort  law  claims:  defama-
tion, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of 
emotional  distress,  intrusion  upon  seclusion,  and  civil 
conspiracy.    Westboro  moved  for  summary  judgment
contending,  in  part,  that  the  church’s  speech  was  insu-
lated  from  liability  by  the  First  Amendment.    See  533 
F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (Md. 2008). 
—————— 

1 A few weeks after the funeral, one of the picketers posted a message
on  Westboro’s  Web  site  discussing  the  picketing  and  containing  relig-
iously  oriented  denunciations  of  the  Snyders,  interspersed  among 
lengthy Bible quotations.  Snyder discovered the posting, referred to by 
the parties as the “epic,” during an Internet search for his son’s name. 
The  epic  is  not  properly  before  us  and  does  not  factor  in  our  analysis. 
Although the epic was submitted to the jury and discussed in the courts
below, Snyder never mentioned it in his petition for certiorari.  See Pet. 
for  Cert.  i  (“Snyder’s  claim  arose  out  of  Phelps’  intentional  acts  at 
Snyder’s  son’s  funeral”  (emphasis  added));  this  Court’s  Rule  14.1(g)
(petition  must  contain  statement  “setting  out  the  facts  material  to
consideration  of  the  question  presented”).    Nor  did  Snyder  respond  to
the statement in the opposition to certiorari that “[t]hough the epic was
asserted as a basis for the claims at trial, the petition . . . appears to be
addressing only claims based on the picketing.”  Brief in Opposition 9.
Snyder  devoted  only  one  paragraph  in  the  argument  section  of  his
opening merits brief to the epic.  Given the foregoing and the fact that
an Internet posting may raise distinct issues in this context, we decline 
to  consider  the  epic  in  deciding  this  case.    See  Ontario  v.  Quon,  560 
U. S. ___, ___ – ___ (2010) (slip op., at 10–12).