Heck v. Humphrey

He then sued the city in federal court under Section nineteen eighty-three, seeking only a declaration that the ordinance violates the First Amendment and an injunction against its future enforcement.

But the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held the suit barred by this Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey.

The questions presented were, first, whether, as the Fifth Circuit holds in conflict with the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, this Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars Section nineteen eighty-three claims seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional.

Second, whether, as the Fifth Circuit and at least four others hold in conflict with five other circuits, Heck v. Humphrey bars Section nineteen eighty-three claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.

The Court held Olivier’s suit seeking purely prospective relief—an injunction stopping officials from enforcing the ordinance in the future—can proceed notwithstanding his prior conviction for violating that ordinance.

Heck does not hold otherwise because a suit that only attempts to prevent future prosecutions does not collaterally attack the old conviction.

The suit, brought under forty-two United States Code Section nineteen eighty-three, seeks an order declaring the ordinance unconstitutional and preventing its enforcement in the future.

The suit, in other words, requests only forward-looking relief, nothing to do with Olivier’s prior conviction.