Nieves v. Bartlett
587 U.S. 391
SCOTUS2019Background
- Russell Bartlett was arrested at a large, alcohol-fueled festival in Alaska and charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest; charges were later dismissed.
- Bartlett sued two officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the arrest was retaliation for protected First Amendment speech (refusing to speak with an officer earlier and intervening on behalf of a minor).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, finding they had probable cause to arrest and that probable cause barred the retaliatory-arrest claim.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding a plaintiff may prevail on a retaliatory-arrest claim despite probable cause if (1) the arrest would chill a person of ordinary firmness and (2) the plaintiff can present evidence enabling a but-for causation finding.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause categorically defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim | Bartlett: probable cause does not automatically defeat a retaliation claim; focus should be on officer intent and but-for causation | Officers: probable cause should bar the claim because it shows the arrest would have occurred absent retaliatory motive | Probable cause generally defeats such a claim, but not invariably; plaintiff must plead and prove lack of probable cause to proceed unless an objective comparator showing is made |
| What burden of proof applies to retaliatory-arrest claims | Bartlett: apply ordinary Mt. Healthy but-for causation framework (subjective motive + causation) | Officers: require no-probable-cause rule (like Hartman for prosecutions) | Court adopts a Hartman-like requirement as a general rule: plaintiffs must plead and prove lack of probable cause; if shown, Mt. Healthy governs |
| Whether common-law analogies support a no-probable-cause rule | Bartlett: First Amendment claim distinct from common-law arrest torts; common law not controlling | Officers: historical torts (false imprisonment/malicious prosecution) showed probable cause was a defense | Court finds common-law false-imprisonment/malicious-prosecution analogies support treating probable cause as generally dispositive |
| Whether any exception to the no-probable-cause rule is required | Bartlett: no special exception; Mt. Healthy suffices | Officers: oppose exceptions | Court recognizes narrow exception: if plaintiff shows objective evidence that similarly situated individuals not engaging in the same protected speech were not arrested, the claim may proceed despite probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (malicious-prosecution precedent requiring absence of probable cause to establish causation in retaliatory-prosecution claims)
- Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (but-for / motivating-factor framework for First Amendment retaliation claims)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (discussed causal complexity in retaliatory-arrest claims and reserved broad question)
- Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 26 (2018) (limited holding that probable cause does not categorically bar retaliatory-arrest claims based on an official municipal policy; Court distinguished that narrow context)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (subjective intent of arresting officer irrelevant to Fourth Amendment probable-cause analysis)
- Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (history and scope of warrantless misdemeanor arrests and implications for officer discretion)