Snyder v. Phelps

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Torts

562 U.S. 443 (2011)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsFirst AmendmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressIntrusion upon SeclusionCivil Conspiracypublic concernprivate concernfuneral picketing

Facts

Westboro Baptist Church members picketed on public land about 1,000 feet from Matthew Snyder's funeral, after notifying authorities and complying with police instructions. Their signs expressed views condemning the United States, homosexuality in the military, and the Catholic Church, including messages such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Priests Rape Boys." The picketers remained behind a temporary fence, did not enter church property or the cemetery, and engaged in no violence, shouting, or profanity. Snyder saw only the tops of the signs while driving to the funeral and learned the written messages later from a news broadcast.

Issue

Does the First Amendment shield Westboro from state tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy arising from its funeral picketing? More specifically, was Westboro's speech on matters of public concern such that tort liability could not be imposed on these facts?

Rule

The First Amendment can bar state tort liability for speech, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, when the speech is on matters of public concern. Whether speech involves public or private concern is determined by independently examining its content, form, and context, as revealed by the whole record, with no single factor dispositive. Speech on public issues in a public place receives special protection and cannot be subjected to tort liability merely because a jury finds it outrageous.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Outside a memorial service in Columbus, Ohio, a small protest group stood on a public sidewalk 900 feet from the church, where police directed them to remain behind barricades. Their signs read, "City Leaders Betray Veterans," "Nation in Moral Decline," and "Tax Dollars Fund Corruption," and the decedent's mother later sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress after seeing media coverage that evening.

Is the mother's IIED claim most likely barred by the First Amendment?

Explanation. The majority held that speech on matters of public concern receives special First Amendment protection, especially when expressed peacefully on public property. Public concern is determined by content, form, and context from the whole record. Here, the dominant theme concerns government and social issues, and the public sidewalk setting strengthens protection. Under the majority's reasoning, IIED liability cannot rest on a jury's finding of outrageousness alone.