Sacrality's at Stake in Snyder v. Phelps

At the heart of Snyder v. Phelps was not only a legal conflict, but a profound clash of sacred values. These sacreds, which can be understood not only as religious ideals but also as deeply held moral or cultural commitments, help explain why the case was so emotionally and socially charged. While the First Amendment framed the legal debate, the underlying tension stemmed from opposing beliefs about what should be treated with reverence, what is inviolable, and what forms of expression should or should not be tolerated in public life.

For the Snyder family, the sacred was centered on the respect for the dead and the right to grieve in peace. The funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was not only a personal loss, but a ritual rooted in cultural and emotional values. For many Americans, funerals are regarded as solemn and sacred occasions, regardless of whether their significance is rooted in religious belief or secular tradition. Funerals are not just rituals for the dead; they are often understood as sacred spaces for the living. They offer a structured moment in which grief, memory, and community come together to support healing.

Disrupting such an event with political or religious protests, especially those that include inflammatory language, was perceived by the Snyder family and many others as a violation of a sacred, secular boundary. This understanding of the sacred does not necessarily stem from religious belief, but rather from widely shared cultural values surrounding decency, respect, and the care owed to individuals during times of loss. In the case of Matthew Snyder, a Marine who died in combat, the funeral held additional symbolic weight. Military funerals often carry strong civic meaning and are seen as moments to collectively honor national service and sacrifice. His death, in some sense, defended the very rights that allowed protestors to disrupt the ceremony held in his honor. As a result, the protest at Snyder’s funeral challenged not only the personal sanctity of a family’s grieving process, but also broader social expectations about how military loss and loss of a loved one in general should be recognized and respected.

From the perspective of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), the protest at Matthew Snyder’s funeral was not meant as a personal attack but was viewed as a public expression of religious conviction and a fulfillment of what they believed to be a sacred obligation. Members of WBC believed that America’s increasing acceptance of what they considered sinful behavior, particularly homosexuality, reflected a broader moral decline that invited divine punishment. In their view, the deaths of soldiers were not random tragedies but signs of God’s judgment on a nation that had strayed from biblical principles. Speaking out against this perceived moral failure was seen not only as a right, but as a responsibility. To remain silent, would have been an act of disobedience to God.

Alongside these theological convictions, the WBC strongly emphasized their constitutional right to free speech. They believed the First Amendment protected their ability to express unpopular or offensive views in public spaces, including outside funerals. Any effort to limit that expression was viewed as a violation of both their religious duty and their civil liberties. In this way, the WBC’s concept of sacrality extended beyond divine commandments to include secular legal protections. Their protest, while distressing to many, was seen within the group as both a religious obligation and a lawful expression of their beliefs.

A third layer of sacred values in Snyder v. Phelps is tied to the cultural meaning of military service and the symbolic weight it carries in American society. For many, the military embodies more than national defense; it represents ideals of sacrifice, loyalty, and collective responsibility. Funerals for fallen soldiers, in particular, are seen as sacred public rituals that acknowledge not only the personal cost of war, but also the ethical code that binds military service together. These ceremonies are steeped in tradition and reverence, serving as a bridge between individual grief and national remembrance. The disruption of such a ceremony is often experienced not only as a personal affront to the family, but as a challenge to the values that the military community holds most dear.

In this case, the presence of protestors at Matthew Snyder’s funeral was understood by many as a violation of a deeply respected moral order; one that honors those who have served by preserving the dignity of their final rites. The tension was especially sharp because the soldier being memorialized had died in defense of a system that protects the very rights used to protest his death. That irony added another layer of moral complexity to the case, highlighting how constitutional freedoms can at times appear to come into conflict with widely shared, though often unspoken, cultural values around respect, sacrifice, and communal mourning.

While the Court’s decision reaffirmed strong constitutional protections for public speech, it also left many feeling that something deeply important had gone unprotected. For the Snyder family and many others, the ruling exposed a gap between legal rights and emotional reality. Although the law had spoken clearly, some felt the result was misaligned with cultural expectations surrounding grief, respect, and military sacrifice. In the eyes of critics, the decision highlighted a painful irony: that a soldier’s death could defend freedoms used to disrupt his own funeral.

In response to these concerns, members of the military community, along with lawmakers from both parties, began calling for stronger protections for families during funeral services. Their efforts culminated in the passage of the Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans (SERV) Act in 2012. The law aimed to provide a buffer between protestors and grieving families, expanding the time and distance restrictions around military funerals. Rather than restricting speech outright, the SERV Act sought to give mourners space and time to grieve without the added burden of direct confrontation. It reflected an attempt to strike a more compassionate balance between freedom of expression and the widely held belief that funerals, particularly those honoring military service, should remain moments of solemn respect.

To strengthen the law’s enforceability, the SERV Act drew on several legal tools. It was grounded in Article I of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to support and regulate the armed forces. This constitutional basis allowed lawmakers to argue that protecting military funerals served a legitimate governmental interest tied to the dignity and morale of service members and their families.

In addition, the SERV Act incorporated aspects of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which is typically used to address organized criminal activity. These provisions helped deter coordinated efforts to repeatedly disrupt funerals by creating stronger penalties and enforcement mechanisms. The law also borrowed elements from copyright law, giving families and private property owners more control over recordings or broadcasts of funeral services. Together, these measures reduced the legal and emotional burden on families by placing responsibility for enforcement on institutions rather than individuals.

Since the SERV Act’s passage, the frequency of funeral protests by groups like the Westboro Baptist Church has declined. The law has not faced significant legal challenges, suggesting that it has succeeded in navigating the narrow space between upholding free speech and protecting the sanctity of military funerals. The SERV Act represents a legislative attempt to respond to the complex values at play in Snyder v. Phelps—values that include constitutional rights, religious expression, civic duty, and the dignity owed to the grieving.