Pro Bono
First Amendment
In 2026, Gibson Dunn launched a First Amendment Practice Group—a development that honors the Firm’s decades-old, topflight First Amendment practice. The Firm’s expertise and passion in this area have been and continue to be put to good use for its pro bono clients. Each year, Gibson Dunn attorneys defend religious liberties, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and the right to assemble before federal and state courts around the country. By bringing the same level of excellence that has made Gibson Dunn a First Amendment powerhouse to our pro bono practice, our attorneys uphold and advance the core liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights that make our country great.
Gibson Dunn has a long and proud history of fighting to protect religious liberties around the world, helping communities with diverse religious beliefs worship without interference. Often, we represent faith institutions whose ability to worship according to their beliefs has been threatened. This year, for example, we represented a church in Bryan, Ohio, called Dad’s Place. Local authorities were directing hostility at the church’s ministry for homeless individuals. In 2023, Dad’s Place formally began offering a place at the church for people with nowhere else to go to worship, rest, and, if necessary, sleep overnight. Although local officials initially appreciated Dad’s Place’s ministry, they later became determined to shut it down, insisting that Dad’s Place was violating the fire code by failing to install an automatic sprinkler system—even though that would cost far more than the church could afford. Bryan’s fire chief sought and obtained a preliminary injunction just before Christmas in 2024. The injunction required Dad’s Place to end its overnight ministry, which would have forced worshippers staying overnight outside into below-freezing temperatures. In a separate criminal proceeding, the City of Bryan also prosecuted the church’s pastor for the same alleged violation of the fire code and secured a fine and 60-day suspended jail sentence.
That’s when Gibson Dunn stepped in. Gibson Dunn immediately appealed and sought an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction—arguing that Dad’s Place was likely to succeed in establishing that its ministry is protected by both the Ohio Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The appellate court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. Gibson Dunn presented oral argument on the merits of the preliminary injunction on April 30. In the parallel criminal proceedings, Gibson Dunn achieved a stay of the execution of the pastor’s sentence pending appeal on state and federal constitutional grounds. Gibson Dunn then presented oral argument in the criminal appeal on September 17, challenging the pastor’s conviction as a violation of his free exercise rights under the United States and Ohio Constitutions. On November 21, 2025, the court of appeals unanimously reversed the trial court in the civil matter and vacated the preliminary injunction. The parties continue to await a decision in the criminal matter.
In another case, the Firm represents Gabriel Olivier, a man who seeks to exercise his Christian beliefs by engaging in the longstanding tradition of sharing those beliefs by preaching in public areas. But after he shared his faith on sidewalks in the public park near an amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi, the city enacted an ordinance restricting “protests” and “demonstrations” to a designated area away from pedestrian traffic during the hours surrounding events at the amphitheater. The area that the city restricted Mr. Olivier to was too isolated for him reach his audience, so he decided to preach in the same place that he had before. This prompted the city to bring a criminal charge against him for violating the ordinance.
After Mr. Olivier pleaded no contest to the charge, he sued the city in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin it from violating his First Amendment rights in the future. The federal district court, however, held that his lawsuit was barred under Heck v. Humphrey—a Supreme Court decision that suggests that the only means of collaterally challenging a criminal conviction is a federal habeas petition—even though Mr. Olivier sought only prospective relief against the enforcement of the ordinance and never had access to federal habeas relief following his conviction. A panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision, and the full court narrowly denied rehearing en banc over several dissents.
Mr. Olivier then retained Gibson Dunn. We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to hear the case because Heck does not apply to claims seeking prospective relief against the enforcement of an unconstitutional law or when a plaintiff never had access to federal habeas relief. The Court granted our petition and heard argument on December 3. Success in this important civil-rights case will help all persons—including those most likely to be prosecuted under unconstitutional state laws—access federal courts to vindicate their constitutional rights.
Gibson Dunn also fought to uphold freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to assembly. In one recent case, we combatted excessive force and due process violations suffered by our client, Mr. C. Mr. C was attending a Black Lives Matter protest on June 1, 2020, when he was violently assaulted by a group of NYPD officers and detained without medical treatment, causing him debilitating psychological and physical injury. Gibson Dunn filed legal claims on behalf of Mr. C, conducted a factual investigation, and fought a yearslong campaign to force the City to comply with its discovery obligations, culminating in a motion for discovery sanctions against the City for its repeated failure to produce responsive documents. The Court said it would grant Mr. C’s motion for sanctions and held an immediate settlement conference where Gibson Dunn succeeded in obtaining a settlement of $42,500 on behalf of Mr. C. Following the settlement, the Court wrote by email, “Your professionalism and dedication in advocating for your respective clients have been exemplary throughout this case. The hard work and cooperation displayed by all parties serve as a model of what can be achieved when attorneys work with such diligence and integrity.” Mr. C was elated with the settlement. He is now back at work and living in a new home with his wife and growing family.
In addition to our direct representations, we regularly file amicus briefs in support of First Amendment freedoms. This year, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of PEN America at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Petitioners’ writ for certiorari in Little v. Llano County. The case involves the removal of 17 books from the shelves of the public library in Llano County, Texas, based on objections to the viewpoints expressed in those books. Our brief highlighted the importance of allowing judicial challenges where books are removed from public libraries. It argued that removing books based on viewpoint harms authors in many ways, including by curtailing free expression, chilling speech in future writings, and promoting government orthodoxy through censorship. In addition, our brief argued that authors have a longstanding First Amendment right to speak through their work and to be protected from viewpoint discrimination. The Supreme Court denied review of this particular case and these issues are likely to arise again in courts around the country.