Connection lost
Server error
Snyder v. Phelps Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects members of the Westboro Baptist Church from tort liability for picketing a soldier’s funeral because their speech, though deeply offensive, addressed matters of public concern.
Legal Significance: Establishes that even “outrageous” speech on matters of public concern is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be the basis for tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, reinforcing the high bar for restricting public debate.
Snyder v. Phelps Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) picketed the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. Adhering to police instructions, they demonstrated on public land approximately 1,000 feet from the church. Their signs displayed messages such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates Fags,” and “You’re Going to Hell.” The signs’ content addressed broader issues including the moral state of the United States, homosexuality in the military, and scandals within the Catholic Church. Matthew Snyder’s father, Albert Snyder, saw the tops of the signs during the funeral procession and later saw their full content on a news broadcast. He subsequently sued Fred Phelps and the WBC for several torts, including intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), alleging he suffered severe emotional anguish. A jury found for Snyder and awarded him substantial compensatory and punitive damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the First Amendment protected WBC’s speech.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause shield church members from tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by their picketing of a military funeral?
Yes. The First Amendment shields the Westboro Baptist Church from tort liability Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause shield church members from tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by their picketing of a military funeral?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle that the First Amendment protects even hateful Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis n
Legal Rule
Speech on matters of public concern is entitled to special protection under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vo
Legal Analysis
The Court's decision turned on the distinction between speech on matters of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The First Amendment shields speakers from tort liability for intentional infliction