Legal Commentary

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a closely watched case, Synder v. Phelps, where the family of soldier Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq, has sued members of a church who picketed his funeral with signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Thank God for IEDs."

The family seeks damages for intrusion upon seclusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress from members of Kansas' Westboro Baptist Church, "who demonstrate at funerals to promote their message that God is punishing America for its acceptance of homosexuality," writes The National Law Journal's Tony Mauro.

Citing First Amendment grounds, the original verdict of $10 million (reduced to $5 million) was reversed on appeal before landing at the nation's highest court. While expressing disdain for the virulent protests, some justices "seemed reluctant to upset First Amendment precedents that protect even the most obnoxious speech from punishment," Mauro observes. The church's actions have "triggered lawsuits and legislation in 43 states to restrict funeral protests," he notes.

Law Technology News' covered the 2007 trial. Six of the church's videos -- shot, animated, and edited by church members -- were central to both team's presentations in the original litigation, wrote Claire Duffett in "War of Words." "The church used the videos to argue consistency and commitment to its religious beliefs." The plaintiff's team used the footage to illustrate "the outrageous nature of the church's message," and surprised the defense by refurbishing the videos to assert that the church conspired to intentionally inflict distress and intrude on the Snyder family.

"If overturned, the plaintiffs could take solace in a famed 1919 dissent by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.," suggested Duffett. 'We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe."