October Term 2010 · Docket 09-751
Does a jury verdict for emotional distress survive First Amendment review?
A family seeks damages for funeral protest speech. The protesters claim constitutional protection.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Sean Summers argued the funeral context makes the speech harmful.
He stated the family wanted a private, dignified burial.
He claimed the protesters made that impossible.
Justice Scalia questioned if the claim relies solely on the location.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the limits of free speech near a funeral. The family wants compensation for distress. The protesters want legal immunity for their message.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 6, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
The family wants to keep the jury award for emotional distress.
The protesters want to dismiss the claim as protected speech.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What each side says
The family argues the protest caused severe emotional harm.
The protesters argue the speech concerns public matters.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if the claim survives without the funeral context.
Justice Alito asked if Maryland law covers funeral events.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between private grief and public speech. It determines when courts can award damages for offensive words. It balances individual rights against community standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.