🧵 @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
#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/
🧵More on Egbert v. Boule, #FederalImmunity, #PoliceAccountability: @IJ has 2 petitions pending on a similar issue involving *domestic* federal policing: Mohamud v. Weyker & Byrd v. Lamb. SCOTUS has been holding those cases *since Jan.* pending Egbert. 1/
We expect the Court will soon issue orders in Mohamud and Byrd (perhaps Monday), and what it does with them will be telling about what - if anything - is left of Bivens. If you want a little more on our cases, I have talked about them here: 2/
Big picture, Egbert is the latest in the Court's death-by-1000-cuts approach to klling Bivens (w/o having to confront stare decisis or public outrage). What Egbert holds is that federal police *involved in immigration related functions* (about half) now have #FederalImmunity. 3/
🧵In Egbert v. Boule today, #SCOTUS has all but overruled Bivens without actually doing so. In effect, the Court has enshrined #FederalImmunity and rights without remedies. To get there, the Court has, again, changed the shifting rules for Bivens . . . 1/
In denying both 1st and 4th A. claims against a CBP agent who shoved down an innkeeper in his driveway and then retaliated against him for complaining, the Court retcons its Bivens jurisprudence and essentially now announces a rational-basis style test for Bivens.
2/
The Court also says that the relevant inquiry for considering the Bivens context is not the facts of any given case, but some undefined broad category--in this case Border Agents and national security. 3/