Survivors Network v. Joyce, No. 13-3036 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseProtestors, including those concerned with sexual abuse by clergy and those advocating the Catholic ordination of women and acceptance of gay, lesbian, and transgender people, raised a facial First Amendment challenge to Missouri's 2012 House of Worship Protection Act" Mo. Rev. Stat. 574.035, which prohibits intentionally disturbing a "house of worship by using profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior . . . either within the house of worship or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of the worship services." The district court upheld the Act. The Eighth Circuit reversed, noting that there was no evidence of actual disturbances to houses of worship or that protesters interfered with churchgoers' entry or exit. The Act draws content based distinctions on the type of expression permitted near a house of worship, forbidding profane discourse and rude or indecent behavior which would disturb the order and solemnity of worship services and runs "a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process." It impermissibly requires enforcement authorities to look to the content of the message and cannot survive strict scrutiny since its content-based distinctions are not necessary to achieve an asserted interest in protecting the free exercise of religion.
Court Description: Civil case - Missouri House of Worship Protection Act. The Act - Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 574.035 - which prohibits intentionally disturbing a house of worship using profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, either within the house of worship or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of worship services cannot survive strict scrutiny since Section 574.035(3)(1) of the Act draws content based distinctions that are not necessary to achieve the state's asserted interest in protecting the free exercise of religion; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.