Nieves v. Bartlett

2019-05-28

Headline: Court narrows First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claims, holding probable cause usually bars lawsuits and making it harder for people to sue police unless they show lack of probable cause or rare comparisons.

Holding: The Court held that probable cause to arrest generally defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under federal civil-rights law, unless the arrested person shows lack of probable cause or objective comparator evidence that others were not arrested.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder to win retaliatory-arrest lawsuits if police had probable cause.
Allows officers more protection from civil suits after arrests supported by probable cause.
Permits claims when plaintiffs show similarly situated people not arrested for similar conduct.

Topics: police arrests, free speech retaliation, probable cause, civil rights lawsuits

Summary

Background

Mr. Russell Bartlett was arrested at a large Alaska winter festival after officers say he behaved loudly and stood close to a trooper questioning a minor; he was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The State later dismissed the charges, and Bartlett sued the two officers under a federal civil-rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1983), claiming they arrested him in retaliation for his protected speech. A federal appeals court said he could pursue that claim even though the officers had probable cause to arrest him.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court. Relying on earlier cases, the majority held that a person bringing a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim must normally show there was no probable cause for the arrest. Probable cause is an objective fact about whether officers had enough reason to arrest. The Court said this rule helps avoid turning every arrest into a subjective inquiry into an officer’s mindset. The Court carved a narrow exception: a plaintiff may proceed without proving lack of probable cause if he presents objective evidence that similarly situated people who were not engaged in the same protected speech were not arrested.

Real world impact

Practically, the decision makes it harder for people to win retaliatory-arrest suits when officers had a valid reason to arrest, because the presence of probable cause will usually end the claim. But claims can still move forward in cases showing clear comparative evidence that others were treated differently. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices agreed the case should be resolved, but they differed over the exception and the proper test; some criticized the new comparison-based qualification and urged reliance on traditional First Amendment standards.