A federal judge in Baltimore substantially reduced yesterday the amount of damages a Kansas-based anti-gay group and three of its leading members must pay for their protest at a Marine's funeral in Westminster.
In a 52-page decision, U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. Albert Snyder successfully sued the church for emotional distress and invasion of his family's privacy after Westboro Baptist Church members waved signs decrying homosexuality at his son's funeral in March 2006.
"There was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that [Westboro's] conduct before, during and after the funeral of Matthew Snyder was outrageous ... [and] highly offensive to a reasonable person," Bennett wrote.
But the judge also more than halved the $10.9 million award announced in October to $5 million, noting constitutional concerns of appropriateness. He held up the jury's compensatory damage award of $2.9 million but reduced the total punitive damages to $2.1 million.
Bennett cited Supreme Court precedent requiring the judge to weigh the nature of the harm suffered by Snyder against the financial resources of Westboro and its members to finance a large damage award.
A pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit by Westboro to overturn the verdict remains in limbo. First, Bennett, the trial judge, must decide how much of a bond the church and its members will have to post while the appeal continues. Church members have argued that they should not be required to post a bond during the appeals process.
A hearing on the issue is scheduled for March 6, according to one of the defendants, Shirley Phelps-Roper.
Westboro church members say they believe soldiers are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as punishment for what they say is the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. There was no evidence that Westboro members targeted the Marine's funeral because they believed he was gay.
Still, the Phelps family argued during the trial that their often incendiary protests should be allowed under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
Bennett largely rejected that argument, saying, "Quite simply, the Supreme Court has recognized that there is not an absolute First Amendment right for any and all speech directed by private individuals against other private individuals."
