Olivier v City of Brandon — Must You Be in Custody for Heck? First Amendment | FULL Argument (2025)

Full oral argument in Olivier v. City of Brandon, No. 24-993, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 3, 2025. Complete and unedited, with the official transcript as captions. The question: Under Heck v. Humphrey, a Section 1983 suit cannot go forward if a judgment for the plaintiff would "necessarily imply the invalidity" of an outstanding conviction. Gabriel Olivier was convicted under a Brandon, Mississippi ordinance restricting where he could preach, served no time, and later sued under Section 1983 for an injunction and a declaration letting him preach in the future. The Fifth Circuit held Heck barred the suit even though he sought no damages and nothing that would undo the conviction. Does Heck bar a Section 1983 suit seeking only prospective relief against future enforcement of a law, when the plaintiff has already been convicted under it; and does Heck apply at all to someone who is no longer, and never was, in custody? Arguing: • Allyson N. Ho, Counsel — for the Petitioner • Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General — for the United States, amicus curiae supporting vacatur • Todd Butler, Counsel — for the Respondents Decided March 20, 2026 · 9–0. Reversed and remanded. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 607 U. S. 552 (2026) — the Court's preliminary print; the page is subject to revision before the bound volume. CHAPTERS 0:00 Case called — Chief Justice Roberts · P. 3 0:10 Opening — Allyson N. Ho, for Petitioner · P. 3 4:56 Jackson: the probation condition · P. 7 8:14 Gorsuch: when is Heck measured? · P. 11 12:19 Alito: must the Court back off Heck? · P. 15 15:53 Alito: Footnote 10 and Question 2 · P. 17 16:37 Roberts: returning to probation · P. 18 18:17 Barrett: if someone else won instead · P. 20 24:57 Sotomayor: the Heck language is broad · P. 27 27:57 Kagan: beating a dead horse · P. 30 30:36 Kagan: Scalia's footnote to Souter · P. 32 37:06 Opening — Ashley Robertson, for United States, amicus · P. 39 40:59 Jackson: where is your line? · P. 42 43:28 Sotomayor: then why did we do Edwards? · P. 45 48:04 Alito: state the rule in two sentences · P. 50 48:48 Alito: clarifying the proposed rule · P. 50 49:38 Gorsuch: what if he wanted expungement? · P. 52 51:50 Gorsuch: the two proposed lines · P. 54 54:23 Opening — Todd Butler, for Respondents · P. 57 56:25 Thomas: why can a stranger sue? · P. 60 1:06:09 Jackson: is any federal forum left? · P. 69 1:09:34 Alito: future First Amendment activity · P. 71 1:10:16 Butler: favorable termination · P. 72 1:10:46 Kagan: does this sound punitive? · P. 73 1:15:08 Jackson: the fellow protestor · P. 78 1:18:54 Butler: reconciling Wooley and Heck · P. 81 1:19:45 Rebuttal — Allyson N. Ho · P. 83 1:24:53 The case is submitted · P. 86 SOURCES • Transcript: supremecourt.gov, No. 24-993 (Official — Subject to Final Review) • Audio: supremecourt.gov, the Court's own recording of the argument • Opinion: 607 U. S. 552 (2026) — supremecourt.gov, the Court's preliminary print — https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions... Nothing here is edited, summarised or reconstructed. The Court bans cameras, so no video of this argument exists; this is the complete audio record as released. Every caption is the official transcript verbatim, with the transcript page shown on screen so any quote can be checked against the record. The Court revises what it publishes — argument transcripts carry “Official — Subject to Final Review” and slip opinions are reissued — and a decision arrives long after the argument. This description is updated as the record changes: the decision is added when it is handed down, and the citation gains its page number when the volume assigns one. The spoken text is never edited. #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #FirstAmendment #SCOTUSNotice