St. Charles city and county officials still hope to restrict protests at military funerals despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding picketers' First Amendment rights.

That ruling, involving a lawsuit filed by the family of a Marine from Maryland, is a separate issue from the court cases involving ordinances passed by the St. Charles city and county councils, local officials said.

Preliminary injunctions issued in response to lawsuits against the city and county have kept them from enforcing those ordinances. The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri filed those suits on behalf of members of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan.

Westboro's protests were the focus of the case that led to the Supreme Court's ruling on March 2. By an 8-1 vote, the court upheld an appeals court ruling against a $5 million lower-court judgement awarded to the dead Marine's father, who had sued Westboro members after they protested at his son's funeral.

A day after the ruling, the Missouri House of Representatives moved to place new restrictions on funeral protests. The House on Thursday voted 142-15 in favor of legislation that would make it a misdemeanor to protest within 500 feet of a cemetery, mortuary, church or other house of worship from two hours before a funeral to two hours after the ceremony. Violators would face up to six months in jail.

Two Missouri funeral protest laws approved in 2006 were deemed unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the cases against the city and county are in the scheduling phase. The county is due back in U.S. District Court in St. Louis on April 8. Assistant County Counselor Robert Hoeynck said the ruling in the Maryland case "is not impacting how we're reacting to the lawsuit" against the county.

"The Supreme Court ruled on the viability of the First Amendment," Hoeynck said. "The defense was for emotional distress and invasion of seclusion, and there was no governmental regulation involved at all. The decision left open the door for more appropriate legislation. We're moving forward defending the litigation."

County Councilman Terry Hollander, R-District 5, agreed with Hoeynck about the differences in the cases. Hollander said the Supreme Court ruled on a particular individual suing an organization, whereas the county ordinance limits the time and distance to where the protests can occur.

"It's a person's right to sue, and second it's a state's or county's right to limit when and where the protests could be," Hollander said.

The County Council voted in December to restrict protests to within 300 feet an hour prior to the commencement of any funeral through one hour following the cessation of any funeral.

On Jan. 24, U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig slapped the county with a preliminary injunction, writing that "this court feels bound by Eighth Circuit precedent that (Shirley Phelps-Roper, et al) is sufficiently likely to succeed on its claim that the state's interests are outweighed by the First Amendment."

Hollander said the county changed its original ordinance so it would have a better chance of winning in court. He said there's nothing in the county ordinance about funeral processions and that it is based on a Nebraska law that has held up in lower courts.

"Whether we win or lose we're still doing the right thing," Hollander said. "You do that and then it's up to the courts to decide. I think we all believe strongly what we've done is the right thing."

So does St. Charles City Council President Mike Klinghammer, Ward 8. Klinghammer said the council still feels very strongly that Westboro's type of protest at funerals is inappropriate.

Because the city's ordinance mirrors the county's, Klinghammer said the Supreme Court ruling doesn't affect its case, either. But he said he could see the city's ordinance eventually mirroring state law.

"That would be the most logical thing to do. That way there's uniformity across the state," Klinghammer said. "If anybody gets challenged, we could join the two cases together."

Tony Rothert, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, was asked if the Supreme Court ruling would affect the St. Charles city or county ordinances.

"Yes and no," Rothert said. "The Supreme Court left open the question whether or not governments could place restrictions on funerals and did not address these laws. On the other hand, there are points that are relevant to the case. The general thrust by the city and county is that people attending funerals are captive audiences, and that was rejected by the Supreme Court. It doesn't dispose of the case by any means and strengthens the arguments against the law."