Exploring Snyder v. Phelps: Blasphemy and Protections of Free Speech in the United States as Defined by the Supreme Court

In a landmark Supreme Court case that delved into the delicate intersection of free speech, religious beliefs, and the right to peaceful assembly, the verdict in Snyder v. Phelps shaped the discourse on blasphemy and sacrality in America, as well as limits (or lack thereof) on free speech, and how (or how not) tort law can be used in civil cases. This case, which revolved around a controversial protest at a military funeral, sparked national debate and set a significant legal precedent on government sanctions in regard to free speech.

The controversy arose when a religious group staged a protest at the funeral Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, holding signs with inflammatory messages. The deceased soldier's family filed a lawsuit, arguing that the WBC's protest infringed on their privacy and inflicted emotional distress.

The question put before the court was: Does the First Amendment protect protestors at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?

Initially, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the Snyder family, awarding them $5 million in damages—$2.9 million in compensatory damages and $2.1 million in punitive damages. The court found that the WBC’s picketing, though conducted on public land and in compliance with local laws, had caused severe emotional pain to the Snyder family and constituted a targeted personal attack under the guise of religious protest.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned this decision, concluding that the Maryland judgment violated the First Amendment’s robust protections of free speech, especially concerning religious and political expression. The court stressed that the WBC’s speech, although “distasteful and repugnant,” addressed matters of public concern—including morality, the behavior of the United States, and the conduct of its military—and was delivered in a public place. As such, it was entitled to constitutional protection.

What are "public matters?" What are "private matters?" And how does it relate to freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment?

Under the First Amendment, not all speech is treated equally. A key legal distinction exists between speech on private matters and speech on public matters, and this distinction shapes how courts evaluate the constitutionality of regulating certain kinds of expression.

Private matters typically involve personal disputes, family issues, or speech that targets a specific individual in a way that is unrelated to any broader societal concern. These forms of speech, especially when they are false, harmful, or intended to harass, may be subject to greater regulations.

The law recognizes that private speech has a higher potential to cause serious emotional or psychological harm, such as in cases of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or invasion of privacy. Because these communications do not contribute meaningfully to public discourse, they are not afforded the same level of constitutional protection.

By contrast, public matters refer to speech that involves issues of political, social, moral, or religious concern that affect society as a whole. This can include commentary on government policy, the military, public morality, or religion. Even if such speech is deeply offensive, provocative, or emotionally distressing, it receives the highest level of protection under the First Amendment. The reason for this is fundamental: in a free and democratic society, citizens must be allowed to express their views on public issues without fear of government punishment or censorship. Limiting such expression would undermine the very foundation of democratic deliberation and individual liberty.

The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court, where it raised profound questions about the boundaries of free speech in the context of religious sensitivity.

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in an 8–1 decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts affirmed that the First Amendment shields even deeply offensive speech from government sanction when that speech pertains to matters of public interest. He noted that “Speech is powerful,” and that the reaction to it cannot be a reason to suppress it, especially when it occurs in a public forum. The Court stressed that allowing the state to punish speech simply because it causes emotional distress would dangerously erode the foundational freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

This decision reinforced the principle that the protection of free speech must extend even to expressions that provoke outrage or emotional harm, so long as they do not cross into unprotected categories such as true threats or incitement to violence. For many, the ruling emphasized the painful reality that constitutional rights can protect the most abhorrent forms of expression in the name of preserving a free and open society.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court not only made a major decision about free speech but also clarified how the law of personal injury, known as tort law, interacts with the First Amendment. Tort law allows people to sue if someone causes them serious harm. One type of tort is an intentional tort, which refers to situations where someone deliberately causes harm to another person. A common example of an intentional tort is the infliction of emotional distress. This means that if a person behaves in a way that is exceedingly outrageous and causes someone else serious emotional suffering, the injured person can file a lawsuit asking for compensation for the emotional damages suffered.

Albert Snyder used this part of the law when he sued members of the Westboro Baptist Church. He believed that their protest at his son’s funeral, with signs that said things like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," had caused him emotional suffering. He was not trying to get them arrested or banned from speaking, but instead used civil law to ask for financial damages for the pain they caused him by disrupting his son's funeral.

However, the Supreme Court ruled against Snyder. The justices said that tort law, even though it is meant to protect people from harm, cannot be used to punish people for speaking publicly about social or political issues. In other words, just because someone’s speech is deeply offensive or hurtful does not mean they can be sued for it—at least not when that speech is about issues that affect the whole society.

This is because the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, especially when the speech pertains to public matters because people need to be able to talk about these subjects openly in a free society, even when those conversations are upsetting or controversial.

The Court made a clear point: you cannot get around free speech protections by labeling a case as something else. Just because a lawsuit is called an emotional distress claim does not mean the court can ignore the First Amendment. If the speech in question is about public issues and takes place in a public space, it is protected.

In Snyder’s case, the Westboro Baptist Church’s protest was not focused specifically on him or his family in a private way. Instead, their message was directed at the country’s moral condition and its military policies, which are public concerns. Because of this, the Court said their speech could not be punished, no matter how much emotional harm it caused.

This case is important because it shows that the First Amendment applies even when speech feels personal or painful. It reminds us that in a democracy, protecting free speech means allowing room for harsh and uncomfortable opinions. The Court did not deny that Snyder suffered. But, it made clear that the law cannot silence public speech just because it hurts.