Civil and Human Rights

Funeral Protest

“It’s a funeral for God’s sake!” said Albert Snyder, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s Father.

The procession had to be re-routed and the SWAT team was called in when Reverend Fred Phelps brought his “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” protest to Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s funeral in 2006.

“They turned it into a circus, a three-ring circus,” said Snyder.

Snyder said it sent him into a deep depression.

“These people are terrorists. They terrorize innocent families,” said Snyder.

A jury gave him 11 million dollars for emotional distress. But an appeals court overturned it saying the, ‘Most Hated Family In America,’ as one filmmaker called them, is protected by the First Amendment.

Funeral Protester Reverend Fred Phelps said, “He don’t have to like my preaching and I’ve got a sneaking feeling that he don’t.  But I’m pretty dog-gone sure that I’ve got the right to preach it and he’s got a right to object to it.”

Today the Supreme Court will consider whether that right interfered with the right of a private citizen to practice his religion.
 
Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center said, “This is about whether or not you have to pay the price for inflicting distress on someone rather than the government fining you or preventing you from speaking in the first place.”

The Westboro Baptist Church has protested some 200 military funerals…claiming God is killing American soldiers to punish the nation for embracing homosexuality.

 

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 26, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.