WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sean Summers was not 20 seconds into his oral argument Wednesday in Snyder v. Phelps when he heard his first question.

Summers was telling the court that his client, Spring Garden Township's Albert Snyder, had the right to bury his son without Westboro Baptist Church protesting nearby when Associate Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted.

"Are we just talking about a funeral?" Scalia asked. "That's one of the problems I have with the case."

And so began the back and forth exchanges that marked the 30-minute oral arguments for both Summers and Margie Phelps, daughter of the Rev. Fred Phelps and lawyer for the church at which she worships.

Hundreds lined up outside the court for a chance to hear the case that could have a significant impact on the laws governing speech, protest and religion. As people waited, they watched a handful of Phelpses sing and trade thoughts with counter-protestors, while reporters from around the country tried to pick up sound bites.

Inside, the nine justices asked the attorneys about the 2006 military funeral of Snyder's son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, the protests the Phelpses staged outside the Westminster, Md., Catholic church and the Phelpses' internet writings about Matthew Snyder and his parents.

The justices pushed Summers to explain how the Phelpses could have intruded upon Matthew Snyder's funeral if they stood outside the church and left soon after the ceremony began, and if Albert Snyder saw the messages on their signs - including "God hates fags" and "You're going to hell" - only on television.

They asked Margie Phelps when, if not in this case, a private figure could sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. They wanted to know how far a person or group could go in directing their message at a person, such as Snyder, as long as it was about a matter of public importance. And, they asked why the Phelpses' signs should not be considered fighting words, which are not protected by the First Amendment.

The justices repeatedly pressed both Summers and Phelps to explore broader legal issues beyond the facts of this case.

The court is expected to issue a ruling early next summer.

Snyder: Westboro speech can't be tolerated

Afterward, both sides said their half-hour before the justices went as expected.

"They were absolutely professional and they'll do what their oath requires them to do and that's follow the Constitution, and I'm fully confident they will do that and it will result in a 9-0 majority," Phelps said.

Snyder and his legal team left the court to cheers from the crowd on the sidewalk, including some who had been there since well before sunrise. Summers did not guess at a ruling - "If someone can predict the voting of this court, they should be in Las Vegas" - but did say he thought the court engaged with his arguments.

Snyder thanked his lawyers, the attorneys general and U.S. senators who filed briefs on his behalf, and all his supporters.

"In my opinion, the speech from the Phelpses and the Westboro Baptist Church carries beyond all bounds of decency of what can be tolerated in a civilized nation," Snyder said in his statement.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, patriarch of the Kansas family, was not at the court.

Justices aim for broader implications

At times, the justices attempted to aid both attorneys, neither of whom had appeared before the court.

Early in Summers' argument, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer laid out a potential framework for how the case should be decided:

"... do you think that a person can put anything on the Internet? Do you think they can put anything on television even if it attacks, say, the most private things of a private individual? Does Maryland's - does Maryland's law actually prohibit that? Do we know it does, and what should the rules be there?

"Have I said enough to get you talking?"

Breyer repeatedly asked both attorneys about how a rule should be structured if the court were to carve out a new understanding of intentional infliction of emotional distress laws. After arguments, Summers said he took these questions to be a good sign.

The justices posed more hypothetical situations to Margie Phelps to test her assertion that Westboro's actions be protected under the First Amendment.

What would happen, Associate Justice Elena Kagan asked, if a protestor could follow a veteran to his workplace with signs saying he was a war criminal. Associate Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. wanted to know if a person opposed to a war could meet the grandmother of a fallen soldier at a bus stop outside a cemetery and "speak in the most vile terms" about her grandson.

Margie Phelps said the Westboro Baptist Church did not do those things. Still, she said, the statements should be protected since they were about public speech, provided the speaker did not violate stalking laws or use fighting words.

Is Westboro 'exploiting a private family's grief'?


Since the justices agreed to hear the case, court watchers have wondered if Margie Phelps would be able to distance herself from her father and family members.

For most of her half-hour, she did, though a few times she used "we" to describe Westboro. Once, when describing why the Phelpses should be allowed to tell Albert Snyder why Matthew was killed, Margie Phelps drifted close to her picket-line preaching.

"Then a little church where the servants of God are found say, we have an answer to your question that you put in the public airwaves and our answer is you have got to stop sinning if you want this trauma to stop happening -" Phelps said before Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted to ask another question.

Margie Phelps repeatedly tried to assert Snyder should be considered a public figure because he criticized the war in Iraq in interviews after his son's death, but the justices did not seem to agree, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor started several questions by asking her what her argument would be if Snyder were not considered a public figure.

The justices also wanted to know why Westboro should be allowed to protest outside a funeral if it was allowed to hold its protests elsewhere, such as the Maryland statehouse or the Naval Academy, which it did on the same day as Matthew Snyder's funeral.

"This is a question about exploiting a private family's grief," Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "The question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this bereaved family when you have so many other forums for getting - getting across your message, the very same day you did?"

When asked during his rebuttal argument if a more generic anti-war funeral protest, one that did not target a soldier's family, would be protected by the First Amendment, Summers said it likely would. Then, before he could make another point, the chief justice ended arguments.

"Thank you Mr. Summers," he said. "The case is submitted."