NACo Legal Advocacy: Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

County Nexus

In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering when individuals who have been convicted of violating a local ordinance may later bring a federal civil-rights suit challenging that law. The answer will directly affect counties, which routinely enforce ordinances related to public safety, land use, elections, public spaces and other aspects of local governance. If the Court narrows or discards the “favorable termination” rule from Heck v. Humphrey, counties and other local governments could face more frequent and costly federal litigation over still-valid convictions and the ordinances that support them.

Background

When a person is cited under a local ordinance and found guilty in a local or state court, the normal path is to challenge that conviction in the state system first. They can appeal, ask a state court to set aside or expunge the conviction, or use other state procedures to overturn it. Only after the conviction has been “favorably terminated” can they file a federal civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if winning that lawsuit would undercut the original conviction.
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court adopted a simple rule: if success in a § 1983 case would mean that an existing conviction is invalid, the plaintiff cannot bring that § 1983 case unless and until the conviction has been favorably terminated, so that the civil suit is not used as a back-door appeal.

In Olivier v. City of Brandon, Gabriel Olivier, a Mississippi street preacher, was cited under a city ordinance that requires protesters at live events at the city amphitheater to use a designated protest area and limits amplified sound. He accepted a conviction and fine under the ordinance, did not first ask the state courts to undo that conviction and instead went straight to federal court. He filed a § 1983 lawsuit arguing that the ordinance violates his First Amendment rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future enforcement. The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed his suit under Heck, concluding that because a judgment in Olivier’s favor would undermine his prior conviction, he must first obtain favorable termination in state court before pursuing his federal civil-rights claim.

NACo Advocacy

The Local Government Legal Center (LGLC) filed an amicus brief in support of the City of Brandon urging the Court to reaffirm that “favorable termination” is required whenever a § 1983 judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior conviction, regardless of the form of relief sought or whether the plaintiff was ever in custody. The LGLC explains that Olivier’s facial challenge to the ordinance falls squarely within that rule. If a federal court holds the ordinance unconstitutional on its face, that judgment would logically cast doubt on his earlier conviction under the same ordinance.

The brief also notes that many states provide multiple avenues to seek favorable termination, including direct appeal, post-conviction review, expungement and executive clemency, which can be pursued even when a person has never been incarcerated. Only after using those state mechanisms should plaintiffs be able to mount federal § 1983 challenges that would undermine a standing conviction. Weakening the favorable-termination requirement would expose a wide range of local ordinances to immediate § 1983 attack by individuals with outstanding convictions, increasing litigation costs and diverting scarce county resources from core services.

Current Status

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Olivier v. City of Brandon on December 3, 2025. The justices’ questions focused on the balance between preserving access to federal courts for civil-rights plaintiffs and respecting state criminal judgments and procedures. A decision is expected later in the 2025 Term. NACo, through the LGLC, will continue to monitor this case and provide updates and resources to help counties understand the implications of the Court’s ruling for local ordinance enforcement, budgeting and civil-rights litigation risk.