Olivier v. City of Brandon · ¶17

All of that could as easily be said of Olivier's suit. Like Maynard, Olivier was convicted under the statute he now alleges to violate the First Amendment. But also like Maynard, Olivier did not seek in his § 1983 suit to upset that conviction, or even to avert its collateral effects. Rather, Olivier sought “wholly prospective” relief—an injunction to preclude “further prosecution” under the law he had earlier broken. Id., at 711. If not able to bring such a suit, Olivier would face the same untenable choice as Maynard: violate the law and suffer the consequences (the Scylla), or else give up what he takes to be his First Amendment rights (the Charybdis). See id., at 710. Our decision in Wooley, taken alone, would thus defeat the City's attempt to prevent Olivier's suit from going forward.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.