Nieves v. Bartlett

Background

A man was arrested by two Alaska officers at a large, rowdy winter festival after confrontations about underage drinking and a dispute about talking to police. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, the charges were later dismissed, and he sued under a federal civil-rights law (42 U.S.C. §1983), saying the arrest was retaliation for his speech. The district court found the officers had probable cause and granted them summary judgment; the Ninth Circuit reversed and allowed the suit to continue.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the existence of probable cause should bar a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim. It held that, generally, probable cause defeats such a claim because it strongly suggests the arrest would have occurred regardless of any animus. The Court said reviewing an officer’s private intent raises hard problems and that courts should rely on objective tests. It drew on earlier cases and common-law analogies and explained a plaintiff must normally show lack of probable cause before pursuing a retaliation claim.

Real world impact

The ruling means many retaliatory-arrest lawsuits will fail when officers had probable cause to make the arrest. The Court created a narrow exception: a plaintiff may proceed if they show objective evidence that similarly situated people who did not engage in the same protected speech were not arrested. The case was sent back to lower courts for further proceedings in light of this rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices disagreed about the exception. One Justice would have applied the no-probable-cause rule without an exception. Another warned probable cause should not be an absolute defense and urged careful future consideration of comparative-evidence requirements. Others emphasized protecting speech and favored the traditional Mt. Healthy test.