Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653

Sylvia Gonzalez, after being elected to the Castle Hills, Texas city council in 2019, helped circulate a petition for removal of the city manager.
During a heated city council meeting, the petition was misplaced and later found in Gonzalez’s possession, which she claims was unintentional.
The mayor reported the incident, prompting an investigation that led to Gonzalez’s arrest on charges of violating a Texas anti-tampering statute for removing a government record.
Gonzalez turned herself in, spent a night in jail, and charges were ultimately dropped.
She filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the arrest was in retaliation for her First Amendment-protected speech (the petition campaign), though she conceded there was probable cause for her arrest.
The district court allowed her claim to proceed under an exception from Nieves v. Bartlett; the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding Gonzalez failed to provide appropriate comparator evidence; the Supreme Court reviewed whether that interpretation of the exception was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate evidence for Nieves exception	Gonzalez argued objective evidence like her county-wide survey suffices to show no similar arrests, even if there is probable cause	Defendants argued only specific comparator evidence—showing that people who committed the same offense weren't arrested—could satisfy the exception	Court held Gonzalez need not present nearly identical comparator evidence; broader types of objective evidence are allowed
Scope of Nieves no-probable-cause rule	Gonzalez argued the probable cause barrier only applies to on-the-spot arrests, not deliberative ones like hers	Defendants asserted the rule applies to all retaliatory arrest claims, regardless of deliberation	Court declined to reach this issue because the first ground sufficed for remand
Permissibility of negative evidence (no similar prior arrests)	Gonzalez claimed such negative evidence is relevant to show differential treatment and fit within the exception	Defendants argued this type of evidence is insufficient—need affirmative examples	Court ruled negative evidence like Gonzalez’s survey can suffice, contextually, though requires further lower court assessment
Sufficiency of Gonzalez's evidence under Nieves	Gonzalez asserted her objective survey and other facts should allow her claim to proceed	Defendants contended her evidence did not meet the high bar required	Court remanded for lower courts to determine sufficiency under clarified standard

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019) (established that probable cause generally defeats retaliatory-arrest claims, but recognized a narrow exception requiring objective evidence of differential treatment)
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (required showing of absence of probable cause in retaliatory-prosecution cases and explained the dangers of probing subjective intent in law enforcement)
Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (set out the two-step burden-shifting framework for First Amendment retaliation claims)
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (discussed permissible use of protected speech in law enforcement decision-making)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (reluctance to probe subjective intent of officers in constitutional analysis)