Snyder v. Phelps (2011): Free Speech, Funeral Protests, and the First Amendment

For The Writers | Official · Authenticated & Thoughtfully Reviewed
Jun 20
4 min read

In the emotionally charged case of Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the First Amendment protects hateful, targeted speech at a private citizen’s funeral. The answer, in an 8–1 decision, was yes.

The ruling confirmed one of the most difficult truths of free expression in America: the Constitution protects even the most offensive speech, especially when it addresses matters of public concern. While many viewed the decision as heartless, it reaffirmed the principle that freedom of speech does not bend to public outrage or emotional pain.

The Background: A Funeral and a Protest

In 2006, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in a non-combat-related vehicle accident while serving in Iraq. His funeral was held in Westminster, Maryland—a solemn, private ceremony attended by family and friends grieving their loss.

But outside the service, members of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC)—a small, independent religious group based in Topeka, Kansas—staged a protest. Led by pastor Fred Phelps, the group held signs reading “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates Fags,” and “You’re Going to Hell.” Though they remained on public land and obeyed local regulations regarding distance and permits, their presence deeply upset the Snyder family.

Albert Snyder, Matthew’s father, filed a civil lawsuit against Phelps and the WBC for intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded Snyder $10.9 million in damages, later reduced to $5 million. The church appealed, claiming their actions were constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.

The Legal Question

The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding a painful and polarizing question: Can the government impose civil liability for speech on public issues, conducted in a public space, solely because that speech causes severe emotional distress to private individuals?

Snyder’s legal team argued that the WBC’s targeted and disruptive conduct exceeded the protections of free speech and amounted to a personal attack during a moment of deep vulnerability. The church countered that they were speaking on matters of public concern—morality, the military, and American values—and that their protest, while offensive, was constitutionally protected.

The Ruling: A Sweeping Defense of Free Speech

On March 2, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in favor of Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

The Court emphasized that the WBC protest, however disturbing or cruel, took place on public land and focused on broad public issues, not specific private facts about the Snyder family. The majority held that:

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. But... we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

The opinion made clear that speech on public issues, especially in public forums, occupies the “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.” As long as such speech is not directly threatening or inciting violence, it is generally immune to punishment, even if it causes emotional harm.

The Lone Dissent: Justice Alito Speaks for the Bereaved

Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenter. In a passionate and empathetic opinion, he argued that the First Amendment does not give anyone a license to “brutalize” a private individual during one of life’s most painful moments:

“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.”

Alito contended that the WBC’s actions were not a contribution to public discourse but a cruel, targeted campaign to exploit personal grief for notoriety.

Public Response: Outrage, Disbelief, and Legal Fallout

The decision was met with widespread outrage. Many Americans—across political and religious lines—expressed disbelief that such vile and hurtful speech could be constitutionally protected.

Yet legal scholars largely supported the ruling, noting its consistency with decades of First Amendment jurisprudence. The case reinforced a key legal distinction: speech that is offensive and emotionally damaging is not necessarily unlawful, particularly when it pertains to public issues and is carried out in a public place.

In response to the uproar, Congress passed laws aimed at restricting protests near military funerals, such as the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act and subsequent state-level buffer zone laws. However, these laws had to be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on the very free speech rights affirmed in Snyder v. Phelps.

Lasting Impact: The Painful Price of Free Speech

Snyder v. Phelps has become one of the most cited and controversial First Amendment decisions of the 21st century. It underscores the constitutional commitment to protect speech, regardless of its content, even when that speech is viewed by many as morally reprehensible or socially corrosive.

The ruling also sparked deeper public reflection on the boundaries between free expression and human dignity, as well as between public discourse and personal suffering. It forced Americans to confront the uncomfortable fact that a free society must often tolerate ugliness to preserve liberty.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court did not endorse hatred—it protected the principle that even the most distasteful speech must remain free when it addresses public issues in public spaces. The decision may be one of the most explicit expressions of the Court’s long-standing doctrine: that the First Amendment doesn’t just protect agreeable or polite speech—it exists to preserve the kind that challenges, offends, and even wounds.

In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that emotional pain, no matter how profound, cannot be the basis for silencing constitutionally protected expression. It’s a principle that may be hard to uphold, but remains vital to democracy.

Disclaimer: The articles in this series are intended for educational and informational purposes only. They are designed to provide general insight into landmark legal cases and their impact on free speech, civil rights, and public discourse. Nothing in these articles should be construed as legal advice. Additionally, the views and interpretations presented do not necessarily reflect the personal opinions or positions of For The Writers or its affiliated entities.