Supreme Court Engages in Spirited Debate Following Woman’s Arrest for Political Dispute
TL/DR –
Sylvia Gonzalez, a former city councilwoman in Castle Hill, Texas, was arrested in 2019 for misplacing a government document and later sued city officials for retaliation, accusing them of violating her First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court’s general rule maintains that individuals cannot sue for retaliatory arrest as long as there’s sufficient evidence of a crime to support the arrest. Gonzalez’s case, brought to question this rule as she argued that she was arrested for speaking out against the city manager, a claim that was rejected by the appeals court as she could not prove that she was treated differently than others arrested for the same crime.
Former Texas Councilwoman Arrested in Retaliatory Act
City councilwoman Sylvia Gonzalez, 72, of Castle Hill, Texas, was arrested for misplacing a document in 2019 after criticizing the city manager. Charges were later dropped, but Gonzalez resigned and sued city officials, alleging retaliation for her First Amendment rights.
However, her case was hindered by the Supreme Court’s rule that prevents suing for retaliatory arrests, provided there is enough evidence of a crime to support an arrest. The appeals court dismissed her case, implying that her acknowledgement of probable cause for the arrest, for violating a Texas law related to concealing government records, was the key factor.
Gonzalez asserted her arrest was a free-speech issue, noting she never would have been detained had she not opposed the city manager. A lawyer for Ms. Gonzalez urged the Supreme Court to let her try to prove that others, committing the same alleged act, would have not been arrested. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch appeared receptive to this argument.
The case, Nieves v. Bartlett in 2019, recognized a narrow exception using an example of jaywalking. Roberts wrote that someone arrested for this crime could sue for retaliation under certain circumstances.
The latest case, Gonzalez v. Trevino, No. 22-1025, tests the limits of this exception. Gonzalez’s arrest occurred shortly after her surprise victory as the town’s first Hispanic councilwoman, and her first official act was to help gather signatures for a petition calling for the city manager’s dismissal.
After a council meeting, Gonzalez was arrested for allegedly concealing a government document, a misdemeanor. The charges were dropped, but Gonzalez, finding the episode traumatic, resigned. The Institute for Justice, representing Gonzalez, argues that Gonzalez is an example of retaliation that Roberts’ opinion required.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said her evidence was not enough. Several justices seemed uneasy about such a strict standard, suggesting the court could rule narrowly for Ms. Gonzalez.
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the narrowness of the exception in the Nieves decision, but Anya A. Bidwell, a lawyer for Ms. Gonzalez, warned that a narrow reading of the exception would lead to troubling outcomes. Meanwhile, Lisa S. Blatt, representing the defendants, urged the court to maintain the status quo to prevent a flood of litigation.
—
Read More US Political News