Snyder v. Phelps - 533 F. Supp. 2d 567 (D. Md. 2008)

Rule:

Freedom of religion embraces two concepts,--freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. The Supreme Court reasoned that conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. Hence, an individual's First Amendment rights must be balanced against a state's interest in protecting its citizens. 

Facts:

Defendant Fred W. Phelps, Sr., founded Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. in Topeka, Kansas, in 1955. For fifty-two years, he has been the only pastor of the church, which has approximately sixty or seventy members, fifty of whom are his children, grandchildren, or in-laws (including the other defendants). The members of this church practice a "fire and brimstone" fundamentalist religious faith. Among their religious beliefs is that God hates homosexuality and hates and punishes America for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in the United States military. Members of the church have increasingly picketed funerals to assert these beliefs. Their picketing efforts gained increased attention when they began to picket funerals of soldiers killed in recent years. 

On March 3, 2006, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder was killed in Iraq in the line of duty. Shortly thereafter, two United States Marines came to the home of the Plaintiff, Albert Snyder, and told him that his son had died. St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster was selected as the site for his funeral, which was scheduled for March 10, 2006. Obituary notices were placed in local newspapers providing notice of the time and location of the funeral. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church learned of Lance Cpl. Snyder's funeral and issued a news release on March 8, 2006, announcing that members of the Phelps family intended to come to Westminster, Maryland, and picket the funeral. On March 10, 2006, Phelps, his daughters Phelps-Roper and Phelps-Davis, and four of his grandchildren arrived in Westminster, Maryland, to picket Matthew Snyder's funeral in order to publicize their message of God's hatred of America for its tolerance of homosexuality. However, in Plaintiff Albert Snyder's eyes, Defendants turned the funeral for his son into a "media circus for their benefit." They carried signs which expressed general messages such as "God Hates the USA," "America is doomed," "Pope in hell," and "*** troops." The signs also carried more specific messages, to wit: "You're going to hell," "God hates you," "Semper fi fags," and "Thank God for dead soldiers." Phelps testified that it was Defendants' "duty" to deliver the message "whether they want to hear it or not." Lance Cpl. Snyder's funeral was thus utilized by Defendants as the vehicle for this message. Defendants' utilization of Matthew Snyder's funeral to publicize their message continued after the actual funeral on March 10, 2006. After returning to Kansas, Phelps-Roper published an "epic" on the church's website, www.godhatesfags.com. In "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder", Phelps-Roper stated that Albert Snyder and his ex-wife "taught Matthew to defy his creator," "raised him for the devil," and "taught him that God was a liar." In the aftermath of his son's funeral, Snyder learned that there was reference to his son on the Internet after running a search on Google. Through the use of that search engine, he read Phelps-Roper's "epic" on the church's website.

On June 5, 2006, Albert Snyder filed this case against Fred W. Phelps, Sr. and the Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. (the "church Defendants"). Shirley L. Phelps-Roper and Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis (the "pro se Defendants") were added as Defendants on February 23, 2007. Snyder originally brought five counts against Defendants--defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. After hearing oral arguments on October 15, 2007, this Court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment as to the defamation and publicity given to private life claims. This Court held, however, that the remaining three claims--intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy--raised genuine issues of material fact to be determined by a jury. Accordingly, the case was tried before a jury from October 22, 2007 to October 30, 2007. On October 31, 2007, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Snyder and against all four Defendants on the three claims, awarding compensatory damages of $ 2.9 million. After hearing additional instructions and arguments, the jury awarded Snyder $ 8 million in punitive damages--$ 6 million for the invasion of privacy claim and $ 2 million for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Judgment was entered by this Court on November 2, 2007. 

Issue:

Were Defendants’ picketing entitled to absolute First Amendment protection?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Defendants argued that the funeral was both a matter of public concern and a public event. They further contended that Lance Cpl. Snyder became a public figure and his funeral became a public event when his father, Albert Snyder, filed a notice of the funeral in the obituary section of a local newspaper, and that both Snyder and his son were, therefore, public figures. Defendants' theory was that an individual becomes a public figure upon the filing of information in the obituary section of any newspaper. This argument is without merit. The evidence in this case was quite clear that Albert Snyder did not "invite attention and comment" when he prepared a funeral for his son, but rather he intended for the funeral to be private. Indeed, the evidence in this case was undisputed that Defendants traveled to the funerals of young men such as Lance Cpl. Snyder so as to publicize their religious opinions and the alleged participation of homosexuals in the military. While earlier religious demonstrations had received little publicity, the demonstrations by the Westboro Baptist Church at the funerals of soldiers generated greater publicity. Phelps-Roper explained the usual modus operandi of her church as applied to Matthew Snyder's funeral. First, Defendants provided notice to law enforcement personnel in Westminster, Maryland of their intent to picket at Lance Cpl. Snyder's funeral. In light of past problems arising from the Westboro Baptist Church's demonstrations at military funerals, this notice necessarily resulted in increased police presence and media coverage at Lance Cpl. Snyder's funeral. Defendants cannot by their own actions transform a private funeral into a public event and then bootstrap their position by arguing that Matthew Snyder was a public figure. By their own actions, Defendants also created an atmosphere of confrontation. This atmosphere was created by signs carrying both a general message as well as signs that could reasonably be interpreted as being directed at the Snyder family. There were signs expressing general points of view such as "America is doomed" and "God hates America." However, there were also signs stating "Thank God for dead soldiers," "Semper fi fags," "You are going to hell," and "God hates you." While signs expressing general points of view are afforded First Amendment protection, these additional signs, which could be interpreted as being directed at the Snyder family, created issues for the finder of fact. Comments published on the church website stating that Matthew Snyder was raised for the devil and was taught to defy God created similar issues to be addressed by the finder of fact. The jury addressed these issues and determined that such comments on signs and on the website were so outrageous as to inflict severe emotional distress and invade the privacy of a private citizen during a time of bereavement.

Defendants alternatively argued that their comments and actions are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. They contended that any comments and opinions expressed on signs or on their website were expressions of their fundamentalist religious beliefs. It was indeed ironic that Defendants chose to publicize their fundamentalist beliefs at the funeral of a twenty-year-old Marine in the State of Maryland, which was founded on principles of religious tolerance. Defendants presented a religious expert, Professor Randall Balmer, who offered testimony explaining the nature of the Defendants' "fire and brimstone" religious beliefs. Professor Balmer acknowledged in his testimony, however, that there was no Biblical or religious connection to Defendants' choice of demonstrations at military funerals. As previously noted, Defendants essentially acknowledged in their testimony that their choice of military funerals was driven by the publicity the demonstrations generated.

Defendants can point to some successful attacks by the Westboro Baptist Church upon statutory restrictions which have been held not to meet these standards of neutrality and general applicability. This case, however, did not involve a criminal statute. Nor did it involve any prohibition of Defendants' First Amendment rights of religious expression. Rather, this case involved balancing those rights with the rights of other private citizens to avoid being verbally assaulted by outrageous speech and comment during a time of bereavement. The Supreme Court reasoned that "[c]onduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." Hence, an individual's First Amendment rights must be balanced against a state's interest in protecting its citizens.