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
April 17, 2026

The Most Offensive Thing a Supreme Court Justice Can Do Is Be Honest About the Supreme Court

Balls & Strikes
This Week In Other Stuff We Appreciated Judges Overseeing Louisiana’s Landmark Oil Cases Have Financial...
Access to Justice
April 20, 2026

CAC Release: Court Considers Whether to Expand or Restrict Authority of Federal Courts to Collaterally Review State Court Judgments

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in T.M. v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Michelle Berger
Access to Justice
April 14, 2026

Doctors Hope Justices Maintain Shield Against Med Mal Suits

CAC Kendall Fellow Michelle Berger discussed CAC's amicus brief in T.M. v. University of Maryland with Law360....
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Cisco Systems v. Doe

In Cisco Systems v. Doe, the Supreme Court is considering, among other questions, whether the Torture Victim Protection Act imposes liability on those who aid and abet torture.
Access to Justice
March 25, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Should Respect History in Worker Arbitration Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Flowers Foods...
By: Smita Ghosh, Harith Khawaja
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...