Justice Jackson Questions Lawyer on First Amendment Relief in Olivier v. City of Brandon

Habeas Corpus and Section 1983 Claims

• ⚖️ The discussion centers on whether Mr. Olivier's suit should proceed, with a focus on Mississippi law regarding issue preclusion for constitutional claims.
• 📌 Mississippi law, as cited in State v. Smith, does not apply issue preclusion to constitutional claims, suggesting the suit could move forward.

The Hec Case and Custody Status

• 🔑 Justice Jackson questioned the lawyer's position on the Hec case, specifically how it aligns with Justice Scalia's view that incarceration status should not matter for prospective relief.
• ❓ The lawyer argued that Hec's attempt to harmonize Section 1983 with habeas corpus is only applicable when a person has been in custody and is no longer.
• 💡 For Mr. Olivier, who was never in custody, the justification for applying Hec is absent, presenting a distinct scenario from Hec.

Conflicting Legal Interpretations

• 🧐 Justice Jackson pointed out that the lawyer's stance on Hec seemed to take two different positions: one focusing on the elements of the claim and another on the necessity of custody.
• 🗣️ The lawyer clarified that if their primary argument (QP1) is not accepted, then the fact that Mr. Olivier was never in custody serves as an alternative reason why he should not be barred by Hec.