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
February 25, 2020

Court says Mexicans cannot sue Border Patrol agents in fatal shootings

Cronkite News (Arizona PBS)
“The court has closed the courthouse doors on those victimized by federal officers, leaving them...
By: David H. Gans, By McKenzie Sadeghi
Access to Justice
February 25, 2020

RELEASE: Conservative Justices Deny Accountability to Family After Cross-Border Killing of Their Son

“The bottom line take-away after today’s ruling is that U.S. border guards can continue to...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, David H. Gans
Access to Justice
November 12, 2019

RELEASE: Will the Supreme Court Sanction a Constitution-Free Zone at the Border?

“The Supreme Court shouldn’t sanction a Constitution-free zone at the border that would allow U.S....
By: David H. Gans
Access to Justice
August 29, 2019

Rutherford Institute Challenges Government Efforts to Sidestep Rule of Law, Undermine Sixth Amendment Assurance of Right to Legal Counsel

The Rutherford Institute
Pushing back against efforts to sidestep the rule of law and disregard fundamental protections for...
Access to Justice
August 23, 2019

Tribe, Ex-Gov’t Officials Argue Against Border Wall Funding

Law360
A Native American tribe, former government officials, law professors and scores of religious groups threw...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

In Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the ability to sue over constitutional violations is limited by a “zone of interests” test.