William Moore, Jr. v. Michael Hartman, 704 F.3d 1003

Supreme Court directed this court to reassess Moore v. Hartman in light of Reichle v. Howards.
Reichle declined to decide whether absence of probable cause defines the scope of the First Amendment right or a prerequisite for recovery.
Reichle hinged on unsettled Tenth Circuit precedent about retaliatory arrest vs. retaliation in prosecution.
This circuit had previously held in Moore V that probable cause is not an element of the First Amendment retaliation claim in retaliatory prosecution.
The majority concludes Reichle does not alter Moore V’s rule; retaliatory arrest and prosecution remain distinct in this circuit, and absence-of-probable-cause is not an element of the First Amendment retaliation right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Moore V still good law after Reichle?	Moore V remains valid.	Reichle undermines Moore V’s premise.	Moore V remains good law; no change in absence-of-probable-cause rule.
Whether absence of probable cause is an element or a prerequisite for recovery in First Amendment retaliation	Hartman framework treats absence as an element.	Reichle creates uncertainty about its role.	Absence-of-probable-cause is not an element of the First Amendment retaliation claim.
Are retaliatory arrest and retaliatory prosecution governed by the same standard in this circuit?	Prosecution is subject to Moore V principles.	Uncertainty from Reichle could affect the standard.	Retaliatory arrest and prosecution are distinct; Moore V framework remains applicable to prosecution.

Moore v. Hartman, 644 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (probable cause not an element of First Amendment retaliation in prosecution)
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (Supreme Court 2006) (absence-of-probable-cause issue central to framework)
Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (U.S. 2012) (uncertainty whether absence-of-probable-cause defines scope or prerequisite for recovery)
Moore III, 388 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (early discussion of probable cause in Moore line)