She was later arrested and charged with stealing government records, although the charges were dropped. Gonzalez claimed her arrest was a retaliatory act orchestrated by city officials.
In her petition to the Supreme Court, Gonzalez argued the Nieves ruling was incorrectly applied, suggesting the court’s 1976 decision in Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle should govern her case. This precedent requires the government to prove that an arrest would have occurred irrespective of the protected speech.
Nieves v Bartlett 5th Circuit Misapplication : Supreme Court’s Broader Interpretation
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores a broader interpretation of the Nieves exception. Anya Bidwell of the Institute for Justice, representing Gonzalez, hailed the ruling as a significant victory for First Amendment rights.
“This decision strengthens protections against retaliatory arrests, safeguarding free speech for all Americans,” Bidwell said.
Gonzalez echoed this sentiment, reflecting on her lengthy legal battle. “This nightmare has kept me awake for five years, but now I can rest knowing this ruling will protect future critics from retaliation,” she stated.
Nieves v Bartlett 5th Circuit Misapplication : Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
The decision included three concurring opinions and one dissent. Justice Samuel Alito, in his concurrence, emphasized the need for broader application of the Nieves exception beyond split-second decisions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, although agreeing with the judgment, expressed concerns over the sufficiency of Gonzalez’s evidence.
