🧵 @IJ's been fighting hard against #FirstAmendment retaliation - litigating a dozen cases in the past few years. But people don't realize that #SCOTUS has all but killed retaliatory *arrest* claims. It's wild. Let me tell you about it (and our case👇). 1/ ij.org/case/castle-hi…
While #SCOTUS is very protective of prior restraint on @USConst_Amend_I and kinda protective of non-arrest retaliation (but see #QualifiedImmunity), it's openly hostile to retaliatory arrest claims. See Nieves v. Bartlett. 2/
Worse still, the reason #SCOTUS immunizes police from retaliatory arrest claims? Pure *policy* (AKA judicial activism). You can't enforce the #FirstAmendment because police have a tough job. Seriously. Justice Gorsuch points this out in his concurrence in Nieves. 3/
Pause on the citation to Harlow, which gave us #QualifiedImmunity. The Court is *double counting* policy concerns. Police work is so tough that we need to only review actions through objective reasonableness, so police get QI *&* you can't sue for retaliatory arrest! Except: 4/
Call me old fashioned, but of all the things the gov't might do to stop me from speaking, throwing me in a cage and putting me on trial is at the top of the list. Yet, #SCOTUS says your 1A rights are weakest there. 5/
So when @IJ sued a mayor, police chief, and lawyer for conspiring to have our 72yo client Sylvia arrested and jailed on trumped up charges because she was trying to remove a city manager in Castle Hills, TX, the 5th Cir. threw out our case. Why? 6/ ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
Sylvia can't satisfy the so-called jaywalking exception because, even though she showed that no one had *ever* been charged under similar circumstance (by reference to hundreds of warrants), that wasn't enough. The 5th Cir. created a circuit split to reach that conclusion: 7/
But who came to Sylvia's defense? Conservative Judge Oldham, who explained in dissent that the majority's interpretation makes no sense. How can you prove there are other jaywalkers who *aren't* charged? It's impossible. 8/
Morever, Oldham explained, the history of the #FirstAmendment should mean that Sylvia's political speech is sacrosanct. And that should never be ignored (or thwarted by #QualifiedImmunity). 9/
.@IJ argues the general rule from Nieves shouldn't even apply outside of split-second decision making. And Judge Oldham agrees. (Really, it shouldn't apply at all - as Justice Sotomayor explained in dissent in Nieves.) 10/
And Judge Ho, another conservative 5th Cir. judge, also came to @IJ's aid, dissenting from the court's denial of our petition for rehearing. 11/
So, with a #CircuitSplit, dissents from 2 well-known conservative judges, and the Constitution on our side, @IJ will ask #SCOTUS to revisit this issue in Gonzalez v. Trevino. As Judge Ho explained, policy-based doctrines have swallowed the #FirstAmendment in many instances. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Because the 14th Amendment was, of course, passed as a result of the Civil War.
If citizenship turned on allegiance, that would have opened a Pandora’s box of questions pertaining to the citizenship status of, at least, confederate leaders, and, at most, all southerners. 2/3
If the issue is allegiance, the child of Honduran immigrant who permanently (albeit illegally) moved to the U.S. for a better life surely has more allegiance to U.S. law than Winnie Davis, who was born while her dad was the president of the CSA and waging war against the U.S. 3/3
🧵As we await decisions on the #SCOTUS relists of @IJ’s #WrongHouseRaid cert. petitions, I want to highlight how these cases expose a judicial hypocrisy.
Factually, they’re similar.
SWAT teams raided the wrong house without checking the address.
Legally, they’re distinct. 1/8
Despite the cases involving different statutes (1983 v FTCA), immunities (qualified v sovereign), types of cops (city PD v FBI), circuits (5th v 11th), the outcomes were identical.
Even though SWAT raided the wrong addresses, innocent families were left to bear the costs. 2/8
So here’s the judicial hypocrisy.
In 2022’s Egbert v. Boule, SCOTUS eviscerated Bivens’ cause of action for constitutional claims against federal officials.
Its justification was separation of powers:
Providing a damages action is the role of Congress, not the judiciary. 3/8
#SCOTUS🧵In 2014, police task force members misidentified James King as a criminal and brutally beat him. The officers never identified themselves, so bystanders believed they were witnessing a murder and called 911. Today, @IJ filed cert (for the 2nd time). #AppellateTwitter 1/
Litigation for the past 9 years(!) has been a case study in immunity doctrines, and has already been to the U.S. Supreme Court in Brownback v. King. I'll walk through that, but lets start with James telling his story: 2/
To begin, Mich. prosecutors charged *James* with multiple felonies. So at 21 he had to stand trial and face decades in prison. If the gov't can get a plea or conviction, most constitutional claims against police die. Thankfully, a jury acquitted James (and he refused to plea). 3/
In Taylor v. LeBlanc, the 5th Cir. holds it’s clearly established that prisons cannot hold people beyond their release date (more than 2 years in this case).
But the 5th Cir. creates a NEW ELEMENT of #QualifiedImmunity to let the jailer off. Wow. 1/
(1) Is there a constitutional violation? (2) Is it “clearly established”?
The clearly-established test does all the mischief because it requires an earlier decision on similar facts (e.g., pepper spray vs. taser). 2/
Though it’s premises are wrong (if not absurd), SCOTUS created the clearly-established test to determine whether an official’s acts were “objectively reasonable.” I.e., if there’s a similar case holding that an act is unconstitutional, it’s objectively unreasonable to do it. 3/
This is the Onion's first amicus brief, and it does a perfect job of showing and telling why parody (like the Facebook posts Anthony Novak published lampooning his local police) is a core #FirstAmendment tool. Anthony was arrested for it. Now the Onion stands with him: 2/
Much more (less funny) information on @IJ and Anthony's case here: 3/
More specifically, the court held that because there was probable cause for a made-up misdemeanor charge, it did not matter that the mayor, police chief, and others conspired to have Syliva jailed for speaking out. (The decision represents a narrow interpretation of Nieves.) 2/
Although @IJ and Sylvia proved that, over a decade no one in Bexar Cnty. TX has EVER been charged under the statute used to charge Sylvia for similar conduct, the only sufficient evidence is proving a negative; find people who jaywalked and DIDN'T get a ticket. (Impossible.) 3/