Republican Lawmakers Push Supreme Court to Bolster Free Speech Rights for Religious Street Preachers
GOP lawmakers urge Supreme Court to strengthen – Two members of Congress from the Republican Party are calling on the nation’s highest court to take up a legal matter they believe could significantly enhance constitutional protections for religious expression in public spaces. The lawmakers contend that law enforcement officers should not be granted qualified immunity when they commit clear violations of the First Amendment against Richard Hershey, a Christian evangelist who was conducting sidewalk ministry in Louisiana.
A Constitutional Right Treated as Optional
Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas emphasized the significance of the case in a statement to Fox News Digital, noting that Hershey’s fundamental liberties were essentially treated as discretionary rather than guaranteed. The congressman explained that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision permits this problematic precedent to continue, resulting in a division among federal circuits that diminishes citizens’ ability to exercise free speech and religious freedom—outcomes that run counter to what the nation’s founders envisioned.
“Mr. Hershey’s constitutional rights were treated as optional the moment officers decided to ignore them,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran stated. “The 5th Circuit’s ruling lets that stand, creating a circuit split that leaves citizens with a weaker right to free speech and right to religious free exercise, which is contrary to the Founders’ intent. The violation of these First Amendment rights should alarm everyone, regardless of politics or faith.”
Moran, alongside Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, has taken the lead in drafting an amicus brief that backs Hershey’s appeal to the Supreme Court. Their legal filing urges the justices to settle a disagreement among federal appellate courts regarding whether government employees can invoke qualified immunity when they commit unmistakable breaches of First Amendment guarantees.
Constitutional Protections for Sidewalk Evangelism
The congressional brief contends that the Constitution safeguards Hershey’s practice of sharing his faith on public sidewalks through both the free speech and free exercise provisions. Furthermore, it maintains that the doctrine of qualified immunity ought not to protect officers from consequences when they violate well-established constitutional principles. The filing also references congressional intent behind Section 1983, which was designed to ensure government officials face accountability for infringing upon constitutional liberties.
According to the brief, the inconsistent rulings issued by various federal appeals courts create a compelling need for Supreme Court intervention to establish uniformity in how such cases are handled nationwide.
“There is simply no excuse for the government actions alleged in petitioner’s complaint. In any other circuit — and in the Fifth Circuit if he were a prisoner asserting mistreatment — his case could proceed,” the petition declares.
“This Court should intervene and reaffirm that there is no novelty exception to the promise of §1983 when it comes to clearly established constitutional rights.”
The Incident That Sparked Legal Action
Last month, the First Liberty Institute, working together with the law firm Clement & Murphy PLLC, formally requested that the U.S. Supreme Court examine a Fifth Circuit ruling. That decision had protected Louisiana government officials from legal liability after they prevented Hershey from distributing Christian vegetarian literature on a public sidewalk adjacent to a municipal park.
Court documents reveal that in February 2020, Hershey was actively handing out Christian pamphlets in the vicinity of the Bossier City Arena in Louisiana. Police officers and security staff approached him and instructed him to cease his activities and depart from the location. First Liberty Institute noted that no formal written policy existed at the time to regulate leafleting activities on the public sidewalks encircling the arena.
The legal organization alleges that Hershey experienced harassment and faced threats of arrest and imprisonment. He attempted to communicate his understanding that his activities were shielded by First Amendment protections. According to the petition, Hershey ultimately left the area and chose not to return, driven by concerns that he might be taken into custody.
Seeking Accountability for Rights Violations
Following the incident, Hershey filed a lawsuit against five police and security officers, claiming they had infringed upon his constitutional free speech rights. A federal district court initially ruled that the officers deserved qualified immunity, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on appeal.
Hiram Sasser, who serves as executive general counsel at First Liberty Institute, expressed appreciation for the congressional support in a statement to Fox News Digital. He emphasized that constitutional rights must come with meaningful remedies to be truly effective.
“A right without a remedy is effectively unenforceable. Americans deserve the right to hold government officials accountable when their First Amendment rights are violated. We are grateful for Rep. Moran and his colleagues who support this important case submitted to the Supreme Court.”
The case represents more than just one evangelist’s personal legal battle. It touches upon fundamental questions about how clearly established constitutional protections are enforced against government actors, and whether citizens can expect consistent application of their rights regardless of which federal circuit they reside in. As the Supreme Court considers whether to grant certiorari, legal observers note that the outcome could have far-reaching implications for religious freedom advocates, law enforcement practices, and the broader landscape of First Amendment jurisprudence across the United States.
