Sylvia Gonzalez, a former Castle Hills, Texas, city council member, alleges that she was forced out of public life through a politically motivated arrest designed to silence her advocacy protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court recently examined the “objective evidence” she must provide to support her claim in the case of Gonzalez v. Trevino, which centers on interpreting the Court’s 2019 ruling in Nieves v. Bartlett, which introduced a “narrow exception” to the general rule that probable cause is sufficient to defeat a claim of retaliatory arrest.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in Nieves, mentioned that in situations where officers have probable cause to arrest but typically choose not to, an inflexible requirement to demonstrate the absence of probable cause could lead to police abusing their power to suppress free speech. He used the example of jaywalking, where arrests are rare despite widespread occurrences. Roberts emphasized that in cases involving retaliatory arrests for protected speech, a plaintiff may present “objective evidence” showing that they were arrested while others engaged in similar conduct were not, to establish a causal link between animus and harm.
This is essentially what Gonzalez, represented by the Institute for Justice, claims occurred to her. In 2019, after winning a city council seat on a platform of replacing City Manager Ryan Rapelye, Gonzalez was targeted by allies of Rapelye, including Mayor Edward Trevino and Police Chief John Siemens, who initiated a criminal investigation based on a missing petition incident. Despite the District Attorney dropping the charges, Gonzalez endured a day in jail and decided to resign from her council position, ceasing her activism.
Gonzalez filed a lawsuit in federal court, accusing Trevino, Siemens, and others of violating her First Amendment rights by orchestrating her arrest in retaliation. While the District Judge allowed her case to proceed, the 5th Circuit ruled against her, citing a lack of comparative evidence. During oral arguments, Institute for Justice attorney Anya Bidwell contended that the 5th Circuit’s interpretation of “objective evidence” was too restrictive, urging courts to consider broader factors indicating causation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed Bidwell’s sentiments, expressing concerns over the potential abuse of criminal laws to stifle dissent. He emphasized the importance of protecting First Amendment freedoms and preventing authorities from using arrests to silence unpopular opinions. The Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino could have significant implications for safeguarding free speech and preventing government retaliation against dissenting voices.