The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently made decisions on two significant cases, accepting one for review while rejecting the other. These cases touch on fundamental rights — free speech and parental authority — and highlight contrasting legal battles. Below, we explore both cases in detail.

1. Gabriel Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

The case SCOTUS has agreed to hear centers on Gabriel Olivier, a Christian street evangelist in Brandon, Mississippi, whose First Amendment rights were allegedly violated.

In 2019, the city passed an ordinance restricting the location and volume of public speech, directly impacting individuals like Olivier who engage in street preaching. Two years later, in 2021, this ordinance led to Olivier’s arrest while he was sharing his message on a public sidewalk. As reported by The Washington Times, “Mr. Olivier was trying to speak with people on the public sidewalk after seeing the amphitheater was too far away.”

The outlet further noted, “He was told to do so only near the restricted area. After he refused, he was arrested and fined for preaching on the sidewalk rather than at the amphitheater. He paid the $305 fine and pleaded no contest. He later sued the city to vindicate his right to speak in public. Specifically, Mr. Olivier has challenged his ability to bring a civil rights claim to challenge the city law, which the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected.” The appellate court ruled that Olivier’s payment of the fine barred him from seeking further legal recourse, a decision now under scrutiny by SCOTUS.

Represented by the First Liberty Institute, Olivier’s case raised critical questions about free speech protections. Kelly Shackelford, president of the organization, celebrated SCOTUS’s decision to hear the case, stating that Olivier’s rights were violated and emphasizing that the court’s ruling will determine “whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.” This case could set a precedent for how local governments regulate public expression and whether individuals can challenge such restrictions after complying with penalties.

2. State of Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana

In contrast, SCOTUS declined to hear a case involving Montana’s Parental Consent for Abortion Act, a law designed to safeguard minors and uphold parental rights. Enacted in 2013, the law required girls under 18 to obtain notarized, written parental consent for an abortion unless granted a judicial waiver. However, the law never took effect due to immediate legal challenges. Montana’s state courts struck it down, arguing it violated the state constitution’s privacy protections. In effect, the law was left unenforceable, sparking debate over its implications.

Pro-life advocates in Montana argued that the absence of this law leaves minors vulnerable to making irreversible decisions without parental guidance or support. Further, they contended that striking down the Parental Consent for Abortion Act undermines parents’ fundamental rights to be involved in significant medical decisions affecting their children. The case’s rejection by SCOTUS means the state court’s ruling stands.

Although the Supreme Court provided no explanation for its refusal to hear the case, and no justices formally dissented, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued a statement clarifying their votes. “In the 12-year history of this case,” the brief stated, “the courts below were never asked to decide whether parents have a fundamental ‘right to know about, and participate in, their child’s medical decisions,’ much less an absolute right to that effect.”

It continued: “The point bears repeating: the parental right, as described by Petitioners here, was never a controverted issue (and so the state courts had no need to resolve it). And Petitioners never suggested below, as they do now, that parents’ federal due process rights are the beginning and end of the analysis (and so the state courts had no opportunity to decide that issue either). This Court should not resolve issues that were never raised below.”

The statement also noted that “the petition does not challenge the Montana Supreme Court’s equal protection holding,” highlighting that “the Montana Supreme Court held that the Consent Act violates a minor’s fundamental right to privacy because it conditions a minor’s abortion access on parental consent.” As summarized by The Epoch Times, the state supreme court found that “although parents enjoy a fundamental right over the custody and care of their children, their right does not supersede a minor’s right to have an abortion.”

Mary Szoch, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, offered a straightforward perspective on the issue in a comment to The Washington Stand. “When a minor is pregnant,” she stated, “that child’s parents should know. They should be the ones who are there to provide their child with the love, support, and care she needs during what is undoubtedly one of the most difficult decisions a teenager can face.”

These two cases underscore the ongoing legal battles over individual and parental rights in the U.S. While SCOTUS’s decision to hear Olivier’s case offers hope for clarifying free speech protections, the rejection of Montana’s case leaves unresolved questions about parental consent and the protection of minors. But according to Szoch, it’s important for pro-life advocates not to be dissuaded.

She concluded, “The Supreme Court’s rejection of this case should not stop the pro-life movement from working to make certain that every woman who is unexpectedly pregnant has the love and support she needs to choose life — and from working to make sure that parents are an integral part of that.”