Access to Justice

RELEASE: Justices Weigh Immunity for Government Officials Who Target Political Adversaries with Arrest

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in which the Court is considering what threshold requirements individuals must satisfy to bring First Amendment claims against a state or local official for causing their arrest in retaliation for their speech, Constitutional Accountability Center’s Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

Five years ago, the Supreme Court made police officers less accountable when they use their arrest authority to retaliate against people whose speech the officers dislike. But the Court tried to balance that ruling with an exception that would allow clear cases of retaliation to proceed in court.

The Justices are now assessing the scope of that ruling, in response to an extreme Fifth Circuit decision that essentially forecloses all retaliatory arrest suits and reaches beyond police officers to shield even high-level government officials who engineer warrants to target their political adversaries.

During this morning’s argument, the Justices grappled with difficult line-drawing problems, but there seemed to be little sympathy for the extremity of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

If the Justices follow the text and history of the law at issue here—a landmark statute passed after the Civil War that empowers individuals to vindicate their constitutional rights in federal court—they will reverse that flawed ruling.

Among other things, the Supreme Court has increasingly relied on nineteenth-century tort law to construe the law at issue, and as Justice Gorsuch emphasized during argument (echoing points made in our amicus brief), using that method here would ensure that high-level government officials cannot act with impunity when they target their political enemies for arrest.

##

Resources:

Case page in Gonzalez v. Trevino: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gonzalez-v-trevino/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Access to Justice
June 23, 2026

CAC Release: In Deeply Disappointing Decision, Supreme Court Ignores Ordinary Meaning of Statute and Denies Victims of Torture Their Day in Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Cisco Systems v. Doe,...
By: Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
June 23, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Undermines Important Right Created by Congress

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Landor v. Louisiana Department...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Access to Justice
June 18, 2026

CAC Release: Court Further Muddies the Waters on the Scope of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine in Majority Opinion that Ignores Critical Reconstruction-Era History Regarding the Role of Federal Courts as the Chief Guardians of Federal Rights

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in T.M. v. University of...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
June 3, 2026

How to Get Neil Gorsuch to Stand Up For Workers

Slate
CAC Legal Fellow Harith Khawaja wrote an article for Slate magazine explaining how CAC's text...
By: Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: A Victory for Text, History, and Delivery Workers in Flowers Foods v. Brock

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Flowers Foods v. Brock,...