Article Summary –
The US Supreme Court revived a civil rights claim by Sylvia Gonzalez, a Texas woman who was arrested after criticizing a senior official. The case focuses on the 2019 ruling Nieves v. Bartlett, which generally prohibits retaliation claims when an arrest is lawful, but allows exceptions under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court determined that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had incorrectly analyzed whether Gonzalez could bring her claim, sending the case back for further proceedings.
Supreme Court Reignites Retaliation Claim of Texas Council Member
The Supreme Court has breathed new life into the civil rights claim of Sylvia Gonzalez, a Texas woman who faced arrest after criticizing a senior official during her tenure on a small-town council. This 8-1 ruling enables Gonzalez to pursue a retaliation claim, with the case returning to a lower court for additional proceedings.
Gonzalez’s case is centered on the interpretation of a 2019 Supreme Court ruling known as Nieves v. Bartlett, which generally prevents plaintiffs from issuing retaliation claims if the police effected a lawful arrest.
In 2019, soon after her election as a council member in Castle Hills, Texas, the then 72-year-old Gonzalez was arrested. Her campaign was characterized by criticisms of the city manager. Charged with the illicit removal of a government document—a citizen petition she had drafted—Gonzalez stated that the document was unintentionally mixed with her other paperwork.
Even though the charges were later dropped, Gonzalez had to spend a day in jail despite no criminal record and ultimately resigned from her elected role. She filed a lawsuit, arguing that her arrest was a retaliatory action for voicing grievances against city manager Ryan Rapelye, infringing her First Amendment rights to free speech. Defendants in the case include Castle Hills Mayor Edward Trevino, then-police Chief John Siemens, and Alex Wright, a lawyer hired for the investigation.
The Supreme Court case mainly revolved around Gonzalez’s attempt to circumvent a procedural hurdle to pursue her lawsuit. Her legal team from the Institute for Justice argued that she should be allowed to press her claim under the auspices of the Nieves v. Bartlett 2019 Supreme Court ruling.
This ruling generally dismisses retaliation claims if the police had a valid reason for the arrest. However, in certain cases, if plaintiffs can demonstrate that others in comparable situations were not arrested despite probable cause, their cases can proceed.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court criticized the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for its analysis of Gonzalez’s ability to press her claim. The lower court’s conclusion that she needed a “very specific comparator” was incorrect, according to the Supreme Court. The evidence Gonzalez provided, showing “no one has ever been arrested for engaging in a certain kind of conduct”, could suffice to let her claim progress,
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone objector, arguing that Gonzalez’s admittance of probable cause for her arrest should prevent her lawsuit from continuing.
Read More US News
This article may have been created with the assistance of AI.
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.
