Here's the full Supreme Court ruling that allows Texas's racial gerrymander, from which I took the excerpted screenshot above:

Follow @mississippifreepress.org and @heatherharrison.bsky.social (who I reported this with).

Sign up for our free newsletter here: www.mississippifreepress.org/newsletters/

And please consider donating to help sustain and grow our nonprofit, paywall-free journalism: givebutter.com/mfpdonate

The justices all seemed to struggle to grapple with the issue and how to remedy it. There was no obvious left-right split, as there often is in other Supreme Court cases.

Regardless of what you think of Olivier, this could have broad implications for who can challenge laws they're convicted under.

A federal court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1994 precedent in the case Heck v. Humphrey, authored by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, barred Olivier from suing over the Brandon ordinance.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

But Wednesday's hearing wasn't about free speech.

It was about whether Olivier can sue at all.

A 1994 Supreme Court ruling found that people cannot use civil litigation to challenge laws under which they were convicted if succeeding “would necessarily imply the invalidity” of the conviction.

The evangelist, Gabriel Olivier, argues that the suburban Mississippi city's ordinance requiring protesters to be in a designated protest zone—and barring him from preaching over a loudspeaker within 100 feet of the amphitheater—violates his free speech, religious freedom and 4th Amendment rights.