Constitutional Accountability Center Constitutional Accountability Center
Access to Justice

RELEASE: CAC Expresses Disappointment In Supreme Court’s Nieves Ruling

“The Court makes it more likely that, as Justice Sotomayor expressed in her dissent, the real world consequence of this decision will be to ‘shield willful misconduct from accountability.’” — CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes

WASHINGTON – Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Nieves v. Bartlett. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts held that individuals who allege they were unconstitutionally arrested in retaliation for their speech cannot sue for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if there was probable cause to arrest them for any crime, unless they can provide evidence that they were arrested when other similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same type of protected speech were not arrested.

Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

In an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part, Justice Gorsuch echoed points raised in a brief submitted by CAC, critiquing the majority opinion for importing standards from the torts of false arrest and false imprisonment into a First Amendment claim brought under Section 1983. That statute was meant to protect the unique and fundamental rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, like the right to free speech, not the interests protected by state tort law. As we explained in our brief, “Artificially limiting the scope of that federal constitutional remedy—in order to fit it within the confines of these dissimilar state torts—would undermine Congress’s statutory plan and the promise of Section 1983.”

Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President for Public Engagement Praveen Fernandes stated:

The majority opinion ignores the text, history, and purpose of Section 1983, which was designed to provide individuals with the ability to seek redress against officers of the state when they violated individuals’ constitutional rights. In doing so, the Court makes it more likely that, as Justice Sotomayor expressed in her dissent, the real world consequence of this decision will be to “shield willful misconduct from accountability.”

#

Resources:

CAC’s case page in Nieves v. Bartlett: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/nieves-v-bartlett/

##

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

###

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Smith v. Kind

In Smith v. Kind, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether qualified immunity protects prison guards from being held accountable for constitutional violations after they confined an incarcerated person in a cell without...
Access to Justice
March 4, 2026

CAC Release: Unanimous Supreme Court Rejects State-Affiliated Corporation’s Claim of Immunity from Suit

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Galette v. New Jersey...
By: Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: In Disappointing Sixth Amendment Decision, the Supreme Court Made Clear the Limits of Its Decision

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Villarreal v. Texas, a...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Access to Justice
February 12, 2026

February Newsletter: CAC Supports Everyday Americans Fighting for Their Day in Court

At every level of our judicial system, a complex set of doctrines determines what cases...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas

In United States ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Flowers Foods v. Brock

In Flowers Foods v. Brock, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from arbitration “last-mile” delivery drivers who transport goods between two points in the same state to their final destinations,...