Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Nieves v. Bartlett

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 17:34, 16 January 2024 by Kate Carsella (contribs) (updating internal links)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Nieves v. Bartlett
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: November 26, 2018
Decided: May 28, 2019
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch

Nieves v. Bartlett is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 26, 2018, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The court reversed and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, holding because "there was probable cause to arrest Bartlett, his retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law."[1] The case came on a writ of certiorari to the 9th Circuit.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Russell Bartlett was arrested by Alaska state troopers Luis Nieves and Bryce Weight. Bartlett sued Nieves and Weight for false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and retaliatory arrest. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with the district court that Nieves and Weight had had probable cause to arrest Bartlett for harassment, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or assault. The district court granted summary judgment to Nieves and Weight on all counts. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's ruling on the false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution charges, but reversed the ruling on the retaliatory arrest charge.
  • The issue: In Hartman v. Moore, 54 7 U.S. 250 (2006), this Court held that probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a matter of law. Does probable cause likewise defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under § 1983?[3]
  • The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the 9th Circuit's ruling, holding because "there was probable cause to arrest Bartlett, his retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law."[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • May 28, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the 9th Circuit Court's ruling.
    • November 26, 2018: Oral argument
    • June 28, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • February 16, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • October 20, 2017: The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the ruling of the district court.[4]

    Background

    Russell Bartlett was arrested by Alaska state troopers Luis Nieves and Bryce Weight. Bartlett sued Nieves and Weight for false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and retaliatory arrest. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with the district court that Nieves and Weight had had probable cause to arrest Bartlett for harassment, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or assault.

    The district court granted summary judgment to Nieves and Weight on all counts. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's ruling on the false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution charges, but reversed the ruling on the retaliatory arrest charge. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the precedent established in Hartman v. Moore (2006)—that retaliatory-prosecution claims are defeated if there was probable cause for the arrest—did not extend to retaliatory-arrest claims.[4]

    Nieves and Weight appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on June 28, 2018.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:

    In Hartman v. Moore, 54 7 U.S. 250 (2006), this Court held that probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a matter of law. Does probable cause likewise defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under § 1983?

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the 9th Circuit's ruling, holding because "there was probable cause to arrest Bartlett, his retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law." Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[1]

    “ Because there was probable cause to arrest Bartlett, his retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[5] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas did not concur with Part II-D of the court's opinion.[1]

    In his concurring opinion, Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ When 42 U. S. C. §1983 was enacted, "the common law recognized probable cause as an important element for ensuring that arrest-based torts did not unduly interfere with the objectives of law enforcement." ... Applying that principle resolves this case. ... The Court acknowledges as much, ante, at 12–13, and I join the portions of the Court’s opinion adopting that rule. I do not join Part II–D, however, because I do not agree that "a narrow qualification is warranted for circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so." Ante, at 13–14. That qualification has no basis in either the common law or our First Amendment precedents.[5] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

    In his opinion, Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ I would hold, as the majority does, that the absence of probable cause is not an absolute requirement of such a claim and its presence is not an absolute defense. At the same time, I would also

    acknowledge that this does not mean the presence of probable cause is categorically irrelevant: It may bear on causation, and it may play a role under [United States v. Armstrong]. But rather than attempt to sort out precisely when and how probable cause plays a role in First Amendment claims, I would reserve decision on those questions until they are properly presented to this Court and we can address them with the benefit of full adversarial testing.[5]

    		”

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

    In her opinion, Ginsburg wrote:[1]

    “ In this case, I would reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment as to Trooper Weight. As the Court points out, the record is bereft of evidence of retaliation on Weight’s part. See ante, at 15. As to Sergeant Nieves, there is some evidence of animus in Nieves’ statement, "bet you wish you would have talked to me now," App. 376, but perhaps not enough to survive summary judgment. ... In any event, I would not use this thin case to state a rule that will leave press members and others exercising First Amendment rights with little protection against police suppression of their speech.[5] ”

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

    In her opinion, Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ We granted certiorari to decide whether probable cause alone always suffices to defeat a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983. The Court answers that question "no"—a correct and sensible bottom line on which eight Justices agree. ... Unfortunately, a slimmer majority of the Court chooses not to stop there. The majority instead announces a different rule: that a showing of probable cause will defeat a §1983 First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim unless the person arrested happens to be able to show that "otherwise similarly situated individuals" whose speech differed were not arrested. [5] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]

    Transcript

    • Read the oral argument transcript here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Supreme Court of the United States, Nieves et al. v. Bartlett, May 28, 2019
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1174 Nieves v. Bartlett," accessed October 30, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1174 Nieves v. Bartlett QPReport," accessed October 30, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 SCOTUSblog, "Nieves v. Bartlett," accessed October 30, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Nieves v. Bartlett, argued November 26, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nieves_v._Bartlett&oldid=9318294"