Nieves v. Bartlett

In 2014, at the Arctic Man winter sports festival in Alaska, Russell Bartlett was arrested by state troopers Luis Nieves and Troy Wilson for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after a confrontation. Bartlett sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the arrest was in retaliation for his protected speech, violating the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that a retaliatory arrest claim could proceed even with probable cause. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the existence of probable cause generally defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but recognized a narrow exception when a plaintiff can show that similarly situated individuals not engaged in protected speech were not arrested. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case. It held that plaintiffs generally cannot bring a retaliatory arrest claim if the arresting officer had probable cause, except where they present objective evidence that they were arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in protected speech would not have been.

Whether the existence of probable cause for an arrest bars a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, and what exceptions, if any, should apply to that general rule.

The ruling significantly limited the ability of individuals to sue police for retaliatory arrests in the presence of probable cause, strengthening qualified immunity protections for officers. Civil rights advocates expressed concern that it narrows accountability for viewpoint-based arrests, while law enforcement groups welcomed the clarification that probable cause normally insulates officers from such First Amendment litigation.