During a lively Supreme Court argument on Wednesday, the justices revisited a complex issue that has been brought before them at least three times before: When can individuals bring a lawsuit claiming they were arrested in retaliation for criticizing the government?
The general rule is that if there is probable cause for the arrest, it is sufficient to prevent lawsuits alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch raised concerns about potential abuse, stating that allowing politically motivated arrests based on obscure statutes could lead to troubling consequences.
The court’s previous encounter with this issue, in Nieves v. Bartlett in 2019, established a narrow exception. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that under specific circumstances, individuals arrested for minor offenses like jaywalking could potentially sue for retaliation.
The case on Wednesday, Gonzalez v. Trevino, No. 22-1025, pushed the boundaries of that exception. It involved Sylvia Gonzalez, a 72-year-old city councilwoman in Texas who was arrested for a minor offense after criticizing the city manager.
Ms. Gonzalez’s arrest came shortly after she had won a surprising victory, becoming the town’s first Hispanic councilwoman. She was arrested for misplacing a petition after publicly denouncing the city manager.
Despite the charges being dropped, Ms. Gonzalez claimed the arrest was in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights and resigned from her position, citing the traumatic experience.
Represented by the Institute for Justice, Ms. Gonzalez argued that she met the requirements for the exception established in Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion. Her lawyers presented evidence suggesting the misdemeanor charge she faced had never been used in similar circumstances.
Several justices expressed discomfort with the strict standard applied by the lower court. They hinted towards a more relaxed approach that would benefit Ms. Gonzalez.
The discussion indicated a possible narrow ruling in favor of Ms. Gonzalez with a potential reconsideration of the case under a less stringent standard by the Fifth Circuit.
Arguments were made for and against maintaining the status quo, with implications of either decision leading to significant legal consequences.
