Supreme Court of the United States
Luis A. Nieves v. Russell P. Bartlett
May 28, 2019139 S. Ct. 1715
Summary
The Court held that a plaintiff bringing a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest, extending Hartman's retaliatory-prosecution rule to arrests because both claims present a tenuous causal connection between the officer's animus and the injury; it carved out a narrow exception where the plaintiff presents objective evidence that similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech were not arrested, in which case the Mt. Healthy framework governs. Applying that standard, the Court held Bartlett's claim could not survive summary judgment because the officers had probable cause to arrest him and the only evidence of animus—a statement attributed to Sergeant Nieves—said nothing about Trooper Weight's motivation. The Ninth Circuit's judgment was reversed and the case remanded. Justice Thomas concurred in part and in the judgment, rejecting the comparator-evidence exception as lacking support in the common law or precedent; Justice Gorsuch concurred in part and dissented in part; Justice Ginsburg concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part; and Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the Mt. Healthy framework should exclusively govern retaliatory arrest claims.
Holding
- Whether probable cause to make an arrest defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under § 1983.. Yes, generally: a plaintiff pressing a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest; absent that threshold showing, the claim fails.
- Whether the no-probable-cause requirement admits an exception where officers have probable cause but typically exercise their discretion not to arrest.. The no-probable-cause requirement does not apply when the plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been; after making that showing, the claim proceeds under the Mt. Healthy test.
- Whether Bartlett's retaliatory arrest claim survives summary judgment.. No. The record contains insufficient evidence of retaliation by Trooper Weight—the alleged statement was Nieves's, and Weight had no knowledge of Bartlett's earlier encounter with Nieves—and, in any event, the officers had probable cause to arrest Bartlett, so the claim fails as a matter of law.
Docket No. 17-1174