Olivier v. City of Brandon · ¶26

With Heck thus out of the way, Wooley returns to center stage. Recall the Court held in that case that Maynard could sue under § 1983 to prevent future enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, despite a prior conviction under that law. See supra, at 561. The same rule allows Olivier to sue under § 1983 to enjoin future prosecutions under the city ordinance, despite his prior conviction. Were that not so, Olivier would face the same dilemma as Maynard: fout the law and risk another prosecution, or else forgo speech he believes is constitutionally protected. See Wooley, 430 U. S., at 710; supra, at 561. We declined to put Maynard to that choice, and we will not put Olivier to it either. His suit to enjoin the ordinance, so he can return to the amphitheater, may proceed.

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