First Amendment Retaliation and Retaliatory Arrest Cases

Bailey v. Ramos

No. 23-50185 (5th Cir. 2025) · Jan 10, 2025

Officer was entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest, seizure, First Amendment retaliation, and excessive force claims where plaintiff went to downtown San Antonio specifically to confront police and the officer had arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Degenhardt v. Bintliff

No. 24-40034 (5th Cir. 2024) · Sep 24, 2024

Brothers stated a Fourth Amendment claim that a traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion, but officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claims regarding vehicle impoundment and First Amendment retaliation for laughing and smirking during the encounter.

Gonzalez v. Trevino

602 U.S. ___ (2024) · Jun 20, 2024

A plaintiff can use any objective evidence — not just strict comparator evidence — to show she was arrested when similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same protected speech had not been, thereby satisfying the narrow Nieves exception.

Bevill v. Wheeler

103 F.4th 363 (5th Cir. 2024) · Jun 5, 2024

On remand from the initial appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed additional qualified immunity issues in the First Amendment retaliation conspiracy case, further defining the standards for § 1983 conspiracy claims against public officials who retaliate against government employees for protected speech.

Buehler v. Dear

No. 20-50822 (5th Cir. 2022) · Mar 3, 2022

Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on a police-accountability activist's false arrest and excessive force claims arising from his arrest while filming police on a crowded street, but genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on certain excessive force claims.

Bevill v. Fletcher

26 F.4th 270 (5th Cir. 2022) · Feb 11, 2022

A police captain's First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983 survived a motion to dismiss where the complaint plausibly alleged that a judge, district attorney, and sheriff conspired to have him fired in retaliation for signing an affidavit critical of their professional relationships.

Maxwell v. Mesquite ISD

No. 3:20-CV-3581-S (N.D. Tex.) · Sep 19, 2021

A school district employee's § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed where the plaintiff failed to adequately allege an official policy or custom that caused the violation, and failed to plead the content of his social media posts to establish they addressed a matter of public concern.

Prim v. Stein

No. 20-20387 (5th Cir. 2021) · Jul 27, 2021

A deputy had probable cause to arrest a concertgoer for public intoxication where the deputy observed swaying, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the person admitted to drinking; but genuine fact issues remained on the wife's arrest where her symptoms could be attributable to multiple sclerosis.

Esquivel v. Eastburn

No. SA-20-CV-00377-OLG (W.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2021) · Apr 28, 2021

A pro se plaintiff's § 1983 claims against state troopers for unlawful arrest, illegal search, and excessive force survived initial screening but were subject to dismissal where the plaintiff failed to state plausible claims against certain defendants.

Livingston v. DeSoto Independent School District

No. 3:20-CV-00764 (N.D. Tex.) · Mar 15, 2021

A school district employee's § 1983 claims for retaliation and due process violations were dismissed where she failed to show that her speech addressed a matter of public concern and failed to allege deprivation of a protected property interest without adequate process.

Kostic v. Texas A&M University at Commerce

No. 3:19-CV-2865 (N.D. Tex.) · Jun 15, 2020

A university employee's due process and First Amendment claims were dismissed where she failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome the university's Eleventh Amendment immunity and failed to identify a final policymaker for Monell liability purposes.

Sanchez v. Young County

956 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2020) · Apr 22, 2020

Summary judgment for the county on a conditions-of-confinement claim was reversed where evidence showed the jail had a persistent pattern of failing to complete mandatory intake screenings, and a pretrial detainee died of a drug overdose after jailers put her in a cell to 'sleep it off' without completing suicide screening or medical intake forms.

Nieves v. Bartlett

587 U.S. 391 (2019) · May 28, 2019

The existence of probable cause generally defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under § 1983, with a narrow exception for cases where the plaintiff shows that similarly situated individuals not engaged in protected speech were not arrested.

Westfall v. Luna

903 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2018) · Sep 13, 2018

Reversed summary judgment on false arrest claims where fact issues existed on probable cause; affirmed qualified immunity on excessive force (de minimis injury from assisting officer), First Amendment retaliation (force motivated by conduct not speech), denial of medical treatment (45-minute delay not deliberately indifferent), and failure to train claims against the City.

White v. Jackson

865 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2017) · Aug 1, 2017

The Eighth Circuit addressed § 1983 claims arising from the Ferguson, Missouri protests, holding that officers who used excessive force against protesters — including tear gas and rubber bullets against non-violent demonstrators — could be held liable, while also analyzing qualified immunity and municipal liability under Monell.

Alexander v. City of Round Rock

854 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2017) · Apr 18, 2017

Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claims where plaintiff alleged he was forcibly removed from his vehicle, pinned face-down, and had a knee pressed on his neck during a traffic stop despite offering no physical resistance.

Turner v. Driver

848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) · Feb 16, 2017

The First Amendment protects the right to record the police, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions — and this right is clearly established going forward in the Fifth Circuit.

Case v. City of New York

233 F. Supp. 3d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) · Feb 10, 2017

Plaintiffs stated viable § 1983 claims against NYPD officers and the City of New York for unlawful arrests during Occupy Wall Street protests, and the court applied Pullman abstention to related First Amendment challenges to protest regulations.

Allen v. Cisneros

815 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2016) · Mar 9, 2016

Officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they had arguable probable cause to arrest a street preacher for violating Houston's demonstration ordinance and for interfering with police duties.

Brooks v. City of West Point, Mississippi

639 F. App'x 986 (5th Cir. 2016) · Feb 11, 2016

Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim where, viewing the facts in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff was grabbed, slammed against a garage door, and forced to the ground while not physically resisting, but were entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim where arguable probable cause existed for disorderly conduct.

Vincent v. City of Sulphur

No. 15-30182 (5th Cir. 2015) · Oct 28, 2015

Reversed denial of qualified immunity on procedural due process and municipal liability claims arising from a no-trespass order prohibiting a citizen from entering city-owned property, holding that the law regarding due process requirements for such orders was not clearly established.

Culbertson v. Lykos

790 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2015) · Jun 22, 2015

Former crime lab employees stated a plausible § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against Harris County based on the Commissioners Court's ratification of the district attorney's alleged retaliatory campaign, but the assistant district attorney was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a non-final-decision-maker could be individually liable for a recommendation leading to adverse action.

Russell v. Altom

546 F. App'x 432 (5th Cir. 2013) · Oct 4, 2013

A grand jury indictment establishes probable cause sufficient to defeat both Fourth Amendment false arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims under § 1983, unless the plaintiff can show the grand jury's deliberations were tainted by law enforcement withholding relevant information.

Pagan-Negron v. Seguin Independent School District

No. SA-12-CV-055-XR (W.D. Tex. 2013) · Sep 24, 2013

A school district was entitled to summary judgment on claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) where the parent participated in the ARD process and the district provided appropriate educational services.

Morgan v. Swanson

659 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2011) · Oct 27, 2011

Public school officials who prevent students from distributing religious materials during non-instructional time violate clearly established First Amendment rights — schools may not suppress private religious expression solely because of its religious viewpoint.

Gentilello v. Rege

627 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2010) · Dec 1, 2010

A tenured professor who was demoted from administrative chair positions failed to state a due process claim under § 1983 because he did not adequately plead a constitutionally protected property interest in the chair positions beyond his underlying tenured professorship.

Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton

568 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2009) · May 28, 2009

A nightclub's § 1983 claims against city officials for allegedly retaliatory enforcement actions were properly dismissed where the nightclub failed to establish that the officials' actions lacked a legitimate basis or were motivated by constitutionally impermissible purposes.

Mesa v. Prejean

543 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2008) · Sep 23, 2008

Where factual disputes exist about whether an officer had probable cause to arrest someone for criminal trespass or disturbing the peace, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is inappropriate; protected speech cannot be the true basis for an arrest.

Hartman v. Moore

547 U.S. 250 (2006) · Apr 26, 2006

A plaintiff alleging retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment must plead and prove that the underlying criminal charge was not supported by probable cause.

Keenan v. Tejeda

290 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002) · Apr 23, 2002

Citizens who reported a constable's wrongdoing and were then subjected to a retaliatory felony traffic stop and prosecution stated a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983, and fact questions precluded qualified immunity.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

532 U.S. 318 (2001) · Apr 24, 2001

The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless custodial arrest for a minor criminal offense — even a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine — as long as the officer has probable cause.

Anderson v. Pasadena Independent School District

184 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 1999) · Aug 5, 1999

A public employee's speech on matters of public concern is protected under the First Amendment, and the district court erred in dismissing First Amendment claims based on the Pickering balancing test without a sufficient factual record.

Benningfield v. City of Houston

157 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 1998) · Oct 6, 1998

A plaintiff pursuing a municipal liability claim based on failure to train must demonstrate a pattern of similar violations to establish deliberate indifference, and a single incident of excessive force is generally insufficient to prove a municipal custom or policy.

Spiller v. City of Texas City Police Department

130 F.3d 162 (5th Cir. 1997) · Dec 1, 1997

Probable cause exists when the totality of facts and circumstances within a police officer's knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense; officers who arrested a suspect based on eyewitness identification and surrounding circumstances had probable cause.

Blackburn v. City of Marshall

42 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1995) · Jan 12, 1995

A wrecker service operator stated a viable § 1983 claim based on First Amendment retaliation when he was removed from the city's towing rotation after complaining to the police chief about the bidding process, but his due process claims failed because he had no protected property interest in remaining on the rotation list.

Simpson v. State

886 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. App. 1994) · Jan 1, 1994

An officer had probable cause to arrest a suspect for public intoxication where the suspect was arguing violently in the middle of the street while showing signs of intoxication, and the cocaine found in a search incident to that lawful arrest was properly admitted.

Pfannstiel v. City of Marion

918 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1990) · Dec 12, 1990

Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity where genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether they used excessive force and conducted unlawful searches during a confrontation with citizens in Marion, Texas.

Pennsylvania v. Muniz

496 U.S. 582 (1990) · Jun 18, 1990

Routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation under Miranda, but a question designed to elicit a testimonial response revealing the suspect's mental state (such as asking the date of his sixth birthday) requires Miranda warnings.

Graham v. Connor

490 U.S. 386 (1989) · May 15, 1989

All claims that law enforcement officers used excessive force during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard — not substantive due process.

City of Houston v. Hill

482 U.S. 451 (1987) · Jun 15, 1987

A municipal ordinance making it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of duty is substantially overbroad under the First Amendment because it criminalizes a significant amount of constitutionally protected speech and accords police unconstitutional enforcement discretion.

Jackson v. Procunier

789 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1986) · May 9, 1986

A prisoner stated a First Amendment and due process claim where prison officials deliberately interfered with his legal mail, causing him to miss a court deadline, thus depriving him of his right to access the courts.

Baker v. McCollan

443 U.S. 137 (1979) · Jun 26, 1979

Detention pursuant to a facially valid arrest warrant does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause merely because the wrong person was arrested, and a sheriff executing a valid warrant is not constitutionally required to independently investigate every claim of innocence.

Lewis v. City of New Orleans

415 U.S. 130 (1974) · Feb 20, 1974

A New Orleans ordinance making it unlawful to curse, revile, or use obscene or opprobrious language toward a police officer is facially overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254 (1964) · Mar 9, 1964

A public official cannot recover damages for defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct unless the statement was made with 'actual malice' — knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Nelson Radio & Supply Co. v. Motorola, Inc.

200 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1952) · Dec 17, 1952

A corporation cannot conspire with its own officers and agents under Section 1 of the Sherman Act; discussions among those managing a single corporation about its business policies do not constitute a conspiracy in restraint of trade.