Voting today?Click here to see who's on your ballot

Gonzalez v. Trevino

From Ballotpedia



Gonzalez v. Trevino
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: March 20, 2024 Decided: June 20, 2024
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
Per curiam
Majority
Per curiam
Concurring
Samuel Alito •Brett Kavanaugh •Ketanji Brown Jackson • Sonia Sotomayor
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas

Gonzalez v. Trevino is a case that was decided by theSupreme Court of the United States on June 20, 2024, during the court'sOctober 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Court on March 20, 2024.

In aper curiam ruling, the Courtvacated theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's judgment andremanded the case for further proceedings.^[1] Aper curiam decision is issued collectively by the court. The authorship is not indicated.Click here for more information.

JusticesSamuel Alito,Brett Kavanaugh, andKetanji Brown Jackson filed concurring opinions. JusticeSonia Sotomayor joined in Justice Jackson's concurrence. JusticeClarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS

The issues: The case concerned theprobable cause exception inNieves v. Bartlett (2019). InNieves, SCOTUS held that if there wasprobable cause for an arrest, a retaliatory arrest claim would fail as a matter of law.^[2]^[3]Click here to learn more about the case's background.

The questions presented:

"Whether theNieves probable cause exception can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened.
"Whether theNieves probable cause rule is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests."^[4]

The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Courtvacated theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's judgment andremanded the case for further proceedings.

The case came on awrit ofcertiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion,click here.

Timeline

The following timeline details key events in this case:

June 20, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Courtvacated theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's judgment andremanded the case for further proceedings.
March 20, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
October 13, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
April 20, 2023: Sylvia Gonzalez appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
July 29, 2022: TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuitreversed theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas' order denying Alexander Wright's motion to dismiss, andremanded the case to the district court in order to dismiss Gonzalez's claims against Wright.

Background

Personnel

The following personnel details are sourced from the U.S. Supreme Court docket file onGonzalez v. Trevino:^[5]

Petitioner: Sylvia Gonzalez
- Legal counsel representing the petitioner: Anya Aleksandrovna Bidwell, William Robert Aronin, Patrick Michael Jaicomo, and Marie Leora Miller (Institute for Justice)
Respondent: Edward Trevino, II,et al.
- Legal counsel representing the respondents: Lisa Schiavo Blatt (Williams & Connolly LLP), Scott Michael Tschirhart (Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal & Zech, P.C.)

Case summary

In 2019, Sylvia Gonzalez was elected toCastle Hills, Texas city council. One of her campaign promises was to remove the city manager from office based on allegations of corruption. Once sworn in, Gonzalez organized a nonbinding petition for the manager's removal and presented it at a city council meeting. Afterward, Mayor Edward Trevino asked Gonzalez where the petition was located and Gonzalez found it in her binder. Allegedly, she was unaware that it was in her possession. Trevino filed a criminal complaint against Gonzalez for theft of the petition and Gonzalez was arrested and imprisoned for one night. She left the city council and alleges she will not run for office nor engage in public political speech.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

Gonzalez sued Trevino, Chief-of-Police John Siemens, and special detective Alex Wright in theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Texas on a retaliatory arrest claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, while conceding that there wasprobable cause for the arrest. She alleged that the defendants were allied with the city manager and that they violated her right to petition and criticize government. The defendants, collectively known as "Trevino" moved todismiss the case based on the independent-intermediary doctrine andqualified immunity.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:^[9]

“

The independent-intermediary doctrine provides that “if facts supporting an arrest are placed before an independent

intermediary such as a magistrate or grand jury, the intermediary’s decision breaks the chain of causation for false arrest, insulating the initiating party.”Anokwuru v. City of Hous., 990 F.3d 956, 963 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted),abrogated on other grounds by Guerra, 82 F.4th 278.^[10]

”

TheWestern District of Texas did not dismiss the case and denied the qualified immunity claims. On appeal, the Fifth Circuitreversed the district court's judgment, holding that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling inNieves v. Bartlett (2019) prohibited Gonzalez' retaliatory arrest claim due to theprobable cause exception. InNieves, SCOTUS held that if there wasprobable cause for an arrest, a retaliatory arrest claim would fail as a matter of law.^[2]^[3] The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that Gonzalez did not have sufficient evidence to trigger theNieves exception—“circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so.”^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

Sylvia Gonzalez appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on April 20, 2023,asking the court to review theNieves probable cause exception evidentiary standard. On October 13, 2023, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case.^[5]^[4]

Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)

Nieves v. Bartlett is a case argued before theSupreme Court of the United States on November 26, 2018, during the court's2018-2019 term. On May 28, 2019, the courtreversed the ruling of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit andremanded the case for further proceedings, holding because "there was probable cause to arrest Bartlett, his retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law."^[2] The case came on awrit ofcertiorari to the9th Circuit.^[11]

Questions presented

Thepetitioner presented the following questions to the court:^[4]

Questions presented:

“

Whether theNieves probable cause exception can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened.
"Whether theNieves probable cause rule is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.^[10]

”

Oral argument

Audio

Audio of oral argument:^[12]

Your browser doesn't support the audio tag.

Transcript

Transcript of oral argument:[13]

Outcome

In aper curiam ruling, the Courtvacated theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's judgment andremanded the case for further proceedings.^[1] JusticesSamuel Alito,Brett Kavanaugh, andKetanji Brown Jackson filed concurring opinions. JusticeSonia Sotomayor joined in Justice Jackson's concurrence. JusticeClarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Opinion

In the court'sper curiam opinion, the court wrote:^[1]

“

InNieves v. Bartlett, 587 U. S. 391, 402 (2019), this Court held that, as a general rule, a plaintiff bringing a retaliatory-arrest claim “must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest.” At the same time, we recognized a narrow exception to that rule. The existence of probable cause does not defeat a plaintiff ’s claim if he produces “objective evidence that he was arrested when other-wise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.”Id., at 407. We grantedcertiorari in this case to consider whether the Fifth Circuit properly applied these principles. It did not. We therefore vacate that court’s judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Because we agree with Gonzalez’s first argument, we do not need to reach her second. We vacate the judgment be- low and remand the case for the lower courts to assess whether Gonzalez’s evidence suffices to satisfy theNieves exception.^[10]

”

Concurring opinions

Justice Alito

JusticeSamuel Alito filed a concurring opinion.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:^[1]

“	Theper curiam opinion correctly decides that the Fifth Circuit took an unduly narrow view of the exception we recognized inNieves v. Bartlett, 587 U. S. 391 (2019). I write separately to provide further guidance on the scope of that decision. ... In sum,Nieves applies to all retaliatory-arrest claims brought under §1983. And that decision means what it says. “[P]robable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim,” and a plaintiff bringing such a claim “must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest” unless he can fit within its narrow exception. 587 U. S., at 402, 406. Nothing in the Court’s decision today should be understood as casting doubt on this holding.^[10]	”
—JusticeSamuel Alito

Justice Kavanaugh

JusticeBrett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:^[1]

“	Properly understood, that is not aNieves-exception claim at all. TheNieves exception is a conduct-based comparison. Only if the conduct does not usually trigger an arrest under any statute can you have aNieves-exception claim—like jaywalking. Gonzalez’s argument turns not on her conduct (taking government records) but rather on hermens rea. She essentially argues that an objectively reasonable officer would have known that Gonzalez accidentally rather than intentionally took the government record. When Gonzalez conceded that the officials had probable cause to arrest her, however, she necessarily conceded that the officers had probable cause to conclude that she“intentionally” removed the document. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §37.10(a)(3). That may have been an unwise concession. But it should have foreclosed Gonzalez’s attempt to contest hermens rea for purposes of her §1983 retaliatory arrest claim. And even if Gonzalez had not made the concession, the question here would be whether an objectively reasonable officer would have known that Gonzalez accidentally (rather than intentionally) took the document. In short, this is (at most) a case about probable cause as tomens rea, not about conduct-based comparisons. This case has nothing to do with theNieves exception. At this point, the Court’s grant ofcertiorari looks ill-advised given that the question presented about theNieves exception bears no relation to the issue on which Gonzalez’s suit actually turns. In any event, we are where we are. I concur in theper curiam because theper curiam does not seem to say anything that is harmful to the law, even though theper curiam (in my view) does not really have anything to do with Gonzalez’s case^[10]	”
—JusticeBrett Kavanaugh

Justice Jackson

JusticeKetanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion, joined by JusticeSonia Sotomayor.

In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:^[1]

“

Today, the Court rightly recognizes that petitioner Sylvia Gonzalez’s survey—showing that, in the last decade, no one charged with the crime for which she was arrested had engaged in conduct similar to hers—is objective evidence admissible to prove that she “was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.”Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U. S. 391, 407 (2019); seeante, at 5.

That recognition, however, should not be taken to suggest that plaintiffs cannot use other types of objective evidence to make this showing. The Nieves exception is satisfied in“circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so.”587 U. S., at 406. “The only express limit we placed on the sort of evidence a plaintiff may present for that purpose is that it must be objective.”Ante, at 4. As the United States explains, such objective evidence could “include officers’ employment of an unusual, irregular, or unnecessarily onerous arrest procedure,” as well as “[t]he timing of and events leading up to a plaintiff ’s arrest.” ... Similarly, “if officers falsely document the arrest or include other indicia of retaliatory motive in arrest-related documents, that too might suggest meaningfully differential treatment.”

Here, in addition to her survey, Gonzalez presented this other kind of evidence as well. Before the District Court, Gonzalez pointed to, among other things, details about the anomalous procedures used for her arrest and statements in the arresting officer’s warrant affidavit suggesting a retaliatory motive. See Brief for Petitioner 43–44. Those categories of evidence, too, can support the conclusion that Gonzalez “was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.”Nieves, 587 U. S., at 407. On remand, the lower courts may consider the full scope of objective evidence that Gonzalez has offered to establish differential treatment.

With this understanding, I join the Court’sper curiam opinion.^[10]

”

—JusticeKetanji Brown Jackson

Dissenting opinion

JusticeClarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:^[1]

“	There is “no basis in either the common law or our First Amendment precedents” for the exception created inNieves and expanded upon today. Id., at 409 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). And, the Court should not craft §1983 rules “as a matter of policy.”Id., at 411. I would adhere to the only rule grounded in history: Probable cause defeats a retaliatory-arrest claim. I respectfully dissent.^[10]	”
—JusticeClarence Thomas

Text of the opinion

Read the full opinionhere.

October term 2023-2024

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.^[14]