Supreme Court docket in Hershey v. City of Bossier City: amicus surge, Aug. 17 deadline

The U.S. Supreme Court docket for Hershey v. City of Bossier City (No. 25-1389) shows a mid-July burst of attention from outside groups concerned about religious speech in public space and how qualified immunity can limit (or block) damages claims against officials. One of the next concrete deadlines for the case is respondents’ brief due August 17, 2026, after the Court granted a time extension.

Because this is still petition-stage docket activity, it does not mean the justices have decided the underlying constitutional merits. But for readers tracking church-state and religious-liberty litigation, the filings matter because they help frame what legal questions could be in play—especially when officials argue they should not be personally liable for alleged First Amendment and Free Exercise violations.

What the dispute is about

According to the petition, Richard Hershey attempted to distribute religious leaflets on a public sidewalk outside a city-owned arena hosting a Christian rock concert. The petition says police and security officers threatened arrest and ordered him to leave, while a nearby commercial leafleteer for a local radio station was handled differently.

What the petition asks the Supreme Court to review

The petition presents a qualified-immunity question tied to Hope v. Pelzer—specifically whether the “obvious clarity” approach discussed in Hope is limited to Eighth Amendment claims, or whether it can also apply to Free Speech and Free Exercise cases so constitutional claims should not be barred by qualified immunity.

What the Fifth Circuit decided below

Before Supreme Court review, the Fifth Circuit decision dated October 7, 2025 addressed the case at the motion-to-dismiss stage. As summarized in the “decisions below” document:

• The panel reversed in part so a municipal liability claim under Monell (including a failure-to-train theory) could proceed.
• The panel affirmed qualified immunity for the police officers.
• The panel also affirmed dismissal of the claims against the security guards.

What changed recently on the Supreme Court docket

• June 12, 2026: Petition for a writ of certiorari filed (with an original response due date of July 16, 2026).
• July 1–2, 2026: A motion to extend the response deadline was filed and then granted, moving the deadline to August 17, 2026 for all respondents.
• July 14–16, 2026: Multiple amicus briefs were filed, including filings on July 14 (Manhattan Institute), July 15 (National Religious Broadcasters; CatholicVote and others; American Center for Law and Justice), and July 16 (including additional briefs such as those from Heartbeat International, FIRE and partner organizations, Cato Institute, and more).

What to watch next

The first reader-facing checkpoint is whether respondents’ brief arrives by August 17, 2026, as reflected on the docket. After that, the Supreme Court may order the petitioners’ reply and/or take further steps toward deciding whether to grant cert. For church-state and religious-liberty watchers, keep an eye on how parties and amici discuss the same core tension: religious speech/leafletting in public event areas versus government “control” and “security” claims—and whether qualified immunity limits the practical ability to obtain damages for alleged First Amendment and Free Exercise harms.

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court docket (Hershey v. City of Bossier City, No. 25-1389)