Supreme Court of the United States · 2026-03-20
42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; street preacher who had pleaded no contest to violating a city protest-area ordinance sued the City and its police chief under § 1983 for a declaration and an injunction against future enforcement (First Amendment); district court and CA5 held the suit barred by Heck v. Humphrey; certiorari granted; reversed and remanded; result: remanded; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 20
| Case | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | Personal involvement / causal connection ("subjects, or causes to be subjected") | Damages remedy (legacy CASE id; not a prerequisite for prospective relief) | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olivier v. City of Brandon — 607 U.S. ___ (2026) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2026 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 20
| Case | Common-law absolute immunity (judicial, prosecutorial, legislative, witness functions) | Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity bar (official-capacity damages / retrospective relief) | Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar | Borrowed state personal-injury statute of limitations (42 U.S.C. § 1988; Wilson v. Garcia; Owens v. Okure) | Issue preclusion / collateral estoppel from prior state criminal or civil judgment (Allen v. McCurry) | Judicial standing prerequisite, separate from damages remedy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olivier v. City of Brandon — 607 U.S. ___ (2026) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2026 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 20
| Case | Statutory bar on injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in a judicial capacity (1996 amendment) | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | District of Columbia exclusive Act of Congress inclusion clause (1979 amendment) | Rejected extra element: separate proof of "abuse of governmental power" (Collins v. City of Harker Heights) | Federal action / Fifth Amendment claim (outside § 1983 state-law scope) | Collateral-order appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Mitchell v. Forsyth; Johnson v. Jones) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olivier v. City of Brandon — 607 U.S. ___ (2026) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2026 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–20 of 20
| Case | Appellate preservation / forfeiture of issue not raised in district court | Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim (Fourth Amendment / procedural due process) |
|---|---|---|
| Olivier v. City of Brandon — 607 U.S. ___ (2026) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2026 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olivier v. City of Brandon — 607 U.S. ___ (2026) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2026 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Deprivation of First Amendment rights (free speech, retaliation, free exercise, petition) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: Gabriel Olivier, street preacher previously convicted under the ordinance; count: First Amendment challenge to the protest-area ordinance, declaratory and injunctive relief only; subject: party=Gabriel Olivier, street preacher previously convicted under the ordinance; count=First Amendment challenge to the protest-area ordinance, declaratory and injunctive relief only First Amendment merits not addressed; the case is remanded after reversal of the Heck dismissal. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Olivier v. City of Brandon — 607 U.S. ___ (2026) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2026 — not · law (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: City of Brandon and its police chief (defendants asserting the Heck bar); count: First Amendment challenge to the protest-area ordinance, declaratory and injunctive relief only; theory: a suit for purely prospective relief against future enforcement is not a collateral attack on the prior conviction; subject: party=City of Brandon and its police chief (defendants asserting the Heck bar); count=First Amendment challenge to the protest-area ordinance, declaratory and injunctive relief only; theory=a suit for purely prospective relief against future enforcement is not a collateral attack on the prior conviction Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a § 1983 action seeking purely prospective relief against future enforcement of an ordinance, even though success would imply that the plaintiff's prior conviction under it was unconstitutional. The Court proceeds on the forfeited assumption that Olivier was never in custody (n. 2) and reserves whether such a suit lies while the plaintiff is in custody for violating the challenged law (n. 3); it does not reach Olivier's separate no-custody argument. | plaintiff earlier convicted under the challenged ordinance (no-contest plea, fine, probation) sues only to enjoin its future enforcement | The next month, Olivier pleaded no contest in municipal court.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10811625; Unicode character offsets [11575:11637] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd8eea6fabd0c3ac62d691029cb273cefd9282a781d34dcd2bb4196267da7f88.In other words, the relief requested is only prospective; Olivier seeks neither the reversal of, nor compensation for, his prior conviction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10811625; Unicode character offsets [12665:12805] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd8eea6fabd0c3ac62d691029cb273cefd9282a781d34dcd2bb4196267da7f88.And Olivier has since made clear that he has no interest in using a favorable judgment in this suit to later get his rec- ord expunged or avoid his conviction’s collateral effects.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10811625; Unicode character offsets [12806:12986] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd8eea6fabd0c3ac62d691029cb273cefd9282a781d34dcd2bb4196267da7f88.We have to agree that if Olivier succeeds in this suit, it would mean his prior conviction was unconstitutional.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10811625; Unicode character offsets [28992:29104] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd8eea6fabd0c3ac62d691029cb273cefd9282a781d34dcd2bb4196267da7f88.Heck prohibits the use of §1983 to challenge the validity of a prior conviction or sentence so as to obtain release from custody or monetary damages.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10811625; Unicode character offsets [10178:10327] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd8eea6fabd0c3ac62d691029cb273cefd9282a781d34dcd2bb4196267da7f88.Given that Olivier asked for only a forward-looking remedy—an injunction stopping officials from enforcing the city ordinance in the future—his suit can proceed, notwith- standing his prior conviction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10811625; Unicode character offsets [17507:17708] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd8eea6fabd0c3ac62d691029cb273cefd9282a781d34dcd2bb4196267da7f88.So the Heck bar does not come into play.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10811625; Unicode character offsets [27702:27742] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd8eea6fabd0c3ac62d691029cb273cefd9282a781d34dcd2bb4196267da7f88. |