frequently asked questions
cases & resources

By David L. Hudson Jr.
First Amendment scholar

“They turned America over to fags; They’re bringing them home in body bags.” The Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church displays such inflammatory, anti-gay statements when protesting the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq. The church asserts that God is punishing the country for its support of gay rights. The Rev. Fred Phelps, the church's founder, and members of his family have garnered many headlines through the years for their vehement protests against homosexuality, including picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a gay man beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998.

The church’s activities led the Kansas Legislature to pass an anti-funeral protest law called the Kansas Funeral Picketing Act in 1992. Phelps challenged the constitutionality of the law and in 1995 a federal judge ruled the Kansas law was unconstitutionally vague with respect to its terms “before” and “after” a funeral. The Legislature then amended the statute to provide: “It is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about any cemetery, church or mortuary within one hour prior to, during and two hours following the commencement of a funeral.” For many years, the issue remained confined in Kansas until Westboro’s protests drew the ire of lawmakers across the country.

State measures
The church’s more recent protests unleashed a torrent of legislative activity rarely rivaled in the annals of First Amendment history. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 34 states have introduced bills to limit protests near funerals; 27 of those states have passed such measures (not including Kansas).

The measures generally criminalize protests near funeral processions as a form of disorderly conduct. The measures typically impose both time and distance limitations. Some of the laws only prohibit protesting at military funerals, while many others ban protests at any funeral.

The Oklahoma Funeral Picketing Act blocks protests at military funerals, prohibiting such activity from one hour before to two hours after the funeral. It also prohibits protests within 300 feet of the location of the funeral service or 300 feet of the “military funeral procession or burial.”

On the other hand, the Illinois law forbids protests at any funeral “within 200 feet of any ingress or egress of a funeral site.” The Illinois measure also prohibits the display “of any visual images that convey fighting words or actual or veiled threats against any other person.”

All in all, in addition to Kansas’ older law, funeral-protest laws have been passed in the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Kentucky court case
Lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of such measures in three states — Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio. As of October 2006, only one court had issued a decision. A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction on Sept. 26, 2006. preventing enforcement of Kentucky’s law because of First Amendment concerns.

In McQueary v. Stumbo, the court determined that parts of the Kentucky law, which banned all types of demonstrations within 300 feet of funerals and funeral processions, “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to prevent interferences with a funeral or to protect funeral attendees from unwanted, obtrusive communications that are otherwise impractical to avoid.”

The judge held that the law was content-neutral and recognized the privacy interests of family members at funerals. However, the court said the law was not narrowly tailored enough to satisfy constitutional standards.

“Certainly the Commonwealth has an interest in showing respect and compassion for the deceased and for their families, but we cannot allow lawmakers to trample upon the First Amendment in the process,” said ACLU of Kentucky staff attorney Lili Lutgens in a news release. “Today, the federal court recognized that even speech that most people find distasteful is still protected by the Constitution.”

Federal legislation
Congress has entered the fray over funeral protests. In March 2006, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., introduced the Dignity for Military Funerals Act of 2006, which would bar picketing within 300 feet of a military funeral for a period of one hour before to one hour after the ceremony. The measure was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Several months later, Congress passed the more narrowly confined Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act and President George W. Bush signed it into law on May 29, 2006. The law broadly prohibits any type of demonstration “under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or on the property of Arlington National Cemetery unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located.” It imposes both time (one hour before and after) and distance requirements (150 feet from road and 300 feet from the cemetery).

The last section of the federal law explains why so many states have rushed to enact and pass similar legislation: “It is the sense of Congress that each State should enact legislation to restrict demonstrations near any military funeral.”

Constitutional concerns
The measures are designed to protect family privacy and prevent emotional distress. Supporters of the measures argue that protecting privacy amounts to a compelling state interest.

In the context of the personal privacy exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in 2004 in National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish the strong privacy interests of family members.

“Family members have a personal stake in honoring and mourning their dead and objecting to unwarranted public exploitation that, by intruding upon their own grief, tends to degrade the rites and respect they seek to accord to the deceased person who was once their own,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Favish. Though the Court addressed privacy in the FOIA context, Kennedy’s statement indicates the depth of the Court’s commitment to family privacy.

The funeral anti-picketing measures reflect state legislators’ similar concerns with families’ privacy rights. For example, the new Oklahoma law provides that “the interests of families in privately and peacefully mourning the loss of deceased relatives are violated when funerals are targeted for picketing and other public demonstrations.”

Oklahoma Republican state Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, sponsor of the measure and a retired U.S. Army chaplain, said in an October 2005 news release: “I am not regulating content of speech. Citizens are afforded various places at numerous times to picket, protest and fully exercise their First Amendment rights — precious rights that I have defended as a combat veteran, but a funeral is not such a place or time. Grieving families have rights, too.”

Ann Stock, legislative aide to Missouri state GOP Sen. Charlie Shields, sponsor of the new Missouri law, described the measure's impetus: “Senator Shields filed this legislation after a group protested the funeral of a fallen soldier from the senator’s district. Those involved with the funeral, including the family, were very upset that this type of protest happened during their time of grieving.”

Stock said the measure “does not specify any certain type of protest or the reason for the protest” and is therefore content-neutral.

Phelps’ group contends all such measures infringe on First Amendment free-speech rights. The church argues that the proposed bills discriminate on the basis of content and viewpoint in flagrant violation of fundamental First Amendment principles.

On its Web site, the church says in a statement that it will challenge such legislation. The church warns legislators: “Your standard is ‘reasonable, time, place and manner restriction.’ If you go one bit over that line we’re going to litigate, and request fees.”

Leading free-speech experts agree that the funeral-picketing measures present troubling First Amendment issues.

“The rationale behind these laws is to stop an offensive type of expression (most people would agree this is offensive),” says Robert D. Richards, director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, “but that’s the very type of expression the First Amendment continues to protect.”

The experts question whether the laws are content-neutral and, thus, do not discriminate against speech based on content. Supporters counter that the measures only impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on expression.

Robert M. O’Neil, founder and director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said: “Despite the apparent content neutrality, these measures target a particular subject matter in ways that — and for reasons that — imply a concern with content.

“I would not view such measures as time, place and manner limited — and would assume (for example) that symbolic displays respectful or laudatory of the deceased would not be banned,” he said.

O'Neil also pointed out that “only one occasion or event is targeted for quite unusual restrictions.”

Richards, author of Freedom's Voice: The Perilous Present and Uncertain Future of the First Amendment, said: “These laws do raise troubling First Amendment issues.

"The sidewalks and streets surrounding funeral homes, churches and the like are typically public fora, and the law governing restrictions on speech in a public forum is fairly well settled. Unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest — and I frankly don’t see enough support for it in the legislative findings in [current legislative proposals] — it can only impose content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions on speech.

“Given that the expression at issue, ‘funeral protest,’ could easily be interpreted as a content-based restriction, the government will likely have a tough time defending the restriction,” Richards said.

“While most people — myself included — would sympathize with grieving family members at a funeral, I don’t find it to be a compelling governmental interest to restrict speech in the area of a funeral.”

Richards said disorderly conduct statutes are sometimes applied in a manner that restricts free-expression rights.

O’Neil agreed, saying: “What is seemingly a content-neutral time, place and manner regulation in fact has a content bias, not only by being so site-specific and thus targeting a particular message (related to funerals and burials) but clearly by constraining only one side of the issue, since a laudatory demonstration (‘military hero’) would clearly not be covered.”

“The time window does not help since the audience sought to be reached would not likely be present at any other time, save possibly on Memorial or Veterans Day and a few other such holidays,” O’Neil said. “Thus, a seemingly time-limited constraint is, de facto, a total ban on conveying an important message to a specific audience.”

Richards and O’Neil warn that many of the laws may not only be content-based but also may constitute an egregious form of content discrimination known as viewpoint discrimination. Content discrimination generally refers to general subject-matter discrimination, such as a law that bans political speeches in parks. Viewpoint discrimination goes beyond mere subject matter and restricts speech based on viewpoint. An example would be a law that prohibits Republican Party speakers in a park but allows Democratic Party speakers.

“The other question I would have is what would happen if people who loved the deceased held up signs outside the church or funeral home saying, ‘We love you. We’ll miss you,’” Richards said. “Would those folks face criminal charges? If not, there’s a viewpoint-based discrimination issue.”

Updated October 2006



Pastor's anti-gay actions test society's commitment to First Amendment
By David L. Hudson Jr. 'The true test of free speech is whether we tolerate political ideas which we all consider offensive,' says law professor. 10.16.98

Tenn. county bars protests near funerals
Officials pass resolution out of concern that members of Topeka, Kan., church might demonstrate at services for Army sergeant. 10.27.05

Legislators propose bills barring protests at funerals
Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana lawmakers cite anti-gay group's demonstrations at military services; free-speech experts question constitutionality of measures. 11.14.05

Mo. city passes law banning funeral protests
St. Joseph passes ordinance after anti-homosexual protest targeted services for local soldier killed in Iraq. 12.21.05

Officials push for Ill. law to curb protests outside funerals
Meanwhile in Indiana, Senate panel approves bill to make disorderly conduct a felony if it occurs within 500 feet of funerals or memorial services. 01.11.06

Lawmakers in 2 states target funeral protests
Missouri Senate passes bill to restrict such demonstrations; Kansas legislator introduces bill to expand current state law. 01.25.06

Wis. lawmakers introduce bill limiting funeral protests
Two state senators say they think measure balances mourners' right to privacy with protesters' right to free speech. 01.26.06

Ky., W. Va. join states trying to bar protesters from funerals
Meanwhile, South Dakota Senate panel approves similar bill, Kansas Senate committee holds hearing in which slain soldier's wife, Rev. Fred Phelps testify. 02.02.06

Wis. legislators send funeral-protest bill to governor
Gov. Jim Doyle says he'll soon sign measure; Kentucky Senate approves demonstration limits. 02.03.06

S.D. governor signs bill restricting funeral protests
Meanwhile, Oklahoma Senate votes 46-0 for measure introduced in reaction to protests by Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church. 02.14.06

Wis. governor signs bill banning funeral protests
Attorney for those who have demonstrated at memorial services for soldiers says legal challenge is likely if law is enforced against them. 02.21.06

Mo. funeral-protest bill sent to governor
Meanwhile, Maryland House panel to take up similar measure; legislation moves forward in Kansas, Oklahoma. 02.23.06

Ind. enacts funeral-protest law
Oklahoma's governor signs similar measure; meanwhile, anti-gay group vows to picket memorial service in Missouri, setting up first direct challenge of new state law. 03.03.06

Anti-gay church says it won't violate new funeral-protest laws
'We're waiting until all the legislatures' (sessions) are over to see what tattered shreds they've left the Constitution in,' says attorney for Kansas group. 03.09.06

Ky. enacts limits for funeral protests
Law signed yesterday requires demonstrators to stay at least 300 feet away from funerals, memorial services, and bars them from using bullhorns. 03.28.06

Iowa governor signs bill restricting funeral protests
'These protesters don't reflect Iowa values, and their actions have no place in our state,' Tom Vilsack says of people who picket soldiers' funerals. 04.18.06

ACLU lawsuit challenges Ky. funeral-protest law
Civil liberties group claims new law goes too far in limiting free speech, no matter how disagreeable. 05.02.06

Mich. Senate passes bills to restrict funeral protests
Legislation now goes back to House, could be on governor's desk next week. 05.04.06

Congress moves toward restricting protests at military funerals
House votes 408-3 for measure aimed at shielding mourners from Kansas church members' anti-gay message. 05.10.06

Ill. governor signs bill limiting protests at funerals
'Let Them Rest in Peace Act' bars demonstrations within 200 feet of funerals shortly before, during and after services. 05.18.06

Texas enacts law banning protests at funerals
'There is a time and place for protests, but it is not at funerals and burials for U.S. soldiers who died to protect the freedoms we hold so dear,' says governor. 05.22.06

Michigan adopts law restricting funeral protests
Legislation aimed at anti-gay Kansas church bans any intentional disruption of funerals within 500 feet of the ceremony. 05.24.06

Congress votes to restrict protests at national cemeteries
'Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act' sent to White House for president's signature. 05.25.06

Bush signs bill barring protests at military funerals
Measure restricts demonstrations at national cemeteries an hour before and after burial services. 05.30.06

Colorado joins states limiting demonstrations at funerals
Attorney for anti-gay Kansas church targeted by measure says group always stands more than 100 feet away from services, so new law won't accomplish anything. 05.30.06

Marine's father to sue group that picketed son's funeral
Civil suit in Maryland will claim defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress. 06.05.06

Gov. Bush vetoes bill requiring prompt replies to records requests
Florida renews law allowing public-records exemption for autopsy photos, increases penalties for protests at military funerals. 06.21.06

Pa. Legislature passes bill limiting funeral protests
Gov. Rendell expected to sign it measure providing penalties of up to $2,500 fine and a year in prison. 06.23.06

Mo. governor signs 2nd funeral-protest bill
New measure says demonstrators can’t come within 300 feet of services, but distance limit kicks in only if a court throws out initial law. 07.07.06

Kan. anti-gay church challenges Mo. funeral-protest law
'I told the nation as each state went after these laws that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them,' says daughter of Westboro Baptist's leader. 07.24.06

N.J. bars protests at soldiers' funerals
Families 'deserve respect and admiration, not the indignity of a graveside political protest,' says sponsor of bill signed into law this week. 08.23.06

Anti-gay church seeks dismissal of defamation suit
'There can be no falsehood when mere opinions are stated,' attorneys for Westboro Baptist Church argue in motion filed in federal court. 09.23.06

Judge suspends Ky. ban on funeral protests
Ruling that law forbidding demonstrations within 300 feet of military services is too broad results in temporary suspension. 09.27.06

3 more states move toward restricting funeral protests
North Dakota House votes 93-0 for bill requiring 300-foot buffer zone; legislative committees in Montana, Wyoming also approve limits. 01.17.07

N.D. funeral-protest restrictions become law
Bills to limit demonstrations at services also advance in Montana, Washington legislatures. 01.26.07

Court won't halt enforcement of Mo. funeral-protest law
Without ruling on church member's First Amendment claims, federal judge says state had raised strong arguments in law's defense that can be further developed at trial. 01.29.07

Washington restricts protests at funerals
Governor says measure sends message to Kansas church: 'I hope, frankly, they stay out of Washington state. They are not welcome here.' 02.05.07

Kan. Senate moves toward new limits on funeral protests
Restriction wouldn't take effect until state high court ruled it was constitutional or it was upheld by federal court. 02.21.07

Trial date set for defamation suit against anti-gay church
Jury trial, expected to last two weeks, is scheduled to begin Oct. 22 in case stemming from Westboro Baptist Church's protest at Marine's funeral. 03.05.07

Utah limits funeral protests
New law prohibits demonstrations within 200 feet, hour before or after service. 03.08.07

Idaho Senate passes bill to ban 'malicious' funeral protests
Measure, aimed at stopping protests by Kansas church, now moves to governor's desk. 03.15.07

Mont. governor signs bill barring funeral protests
Despite concerns about infringing on First Amendment rights, state joins more than 30 others in enacting legislation to keep picketers away from military funerals. 03.19.07

Federal judge upholds most of Ohio funeral-protest law
However, court strikes down portion of 2006 law that extended 300-foot buffer zone along funeral-procession routes as unconstitutionally broad. 03.26.07

Kan. governor signs funeral-picketing bill into law
But measure won't take effect until state high court or federal court rules it is constitutional. 04.13.07

Maine governor signs emergency bill barring funeral protests
Law making it a crime to accost, insult, taunt or challenge any person attending funeral, burial or memorial service took effect immediately. 05.22.07

Kan. high court may not review funeral-picketing law
Justices give state attorney general until Aug. 24 to explain why lawsuit, which asks court to review statute, shouldn't be dismissed. 07.29.07

Activist, advocates for homeless challenge Ga. funeral-protest law
'No matter how well-intentioned, the law cast a whale-size net that captures innocent speakers,' says plaintiffs' attorney. 10.11.07

Federal judge dismisses defamation claim against Westboro Baptist
Case brought by family of Marine killed in Iraq to proceed to trial next week against Kansas church on invasion-of-privacy, emotional-distress claims. 10.16.07

Federal jury awards father $10.9 million in funeral-protest case
Attorneys for Kansas church say they will appeal ruling that members invaded family's privacy, inflicted emotional distress when they picketed Marine's funeral in 2006. 10.31.07

Supreme Court asked to intervene in Md., Neb. funeral-protest cases
Opposing attorneys say Westboro Baptist Church's filing is improper because cases haven't gone through appropriate appellate channels. 11.14.07

8th Circuit: Mo. funeral-protest law should be on hold
Panel says Westboro Baptist’s Shirley Phelps-Roper 'has a fair chance' of proving she has First Amendment right to picket at soldiers' services. 12.07.07

Kan. high court voids funeral-picketing law
Justices rule that it was unconstitutional for legislators to include language that required a court to uphold statute before it could be enforced. 03.11.08

Kan. governor signs funeral-picketing bill
New law, which goes into effect April 10, replaces similar statute that state high court invalidated last month. 04.04.08

A funeral for free speech?
By Ron Collins & David Hudson Decency respects the dead; First Amendment respects freedom: Which should prevail? 04.17.06

In defense of the indefensible
By Charles C. Haynes Holocaust deniers' views are repugnant, but criminalizing their views just makes them martyrs and puts other speech at risk. 01.21.07

print this   Print

Last system update: Friday, April 4, 2008 | 16:12:25
topics >
Curfews, loitering & freedom of association
Civil rights & First Amendment
Abortion protests & buffer zones
Assembly on private property
Funeral protests