How a Supreme Court Ruling Could Embolden Police Retaliation Against Political Speech
Update, June 19, 2018: On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that in some cases, retaliatory arrest lawsuits against the police can proceed even where the police had probable cause to arrest the individual. The court limited its decision to circumstances where arrestees alleges that "high-level" city policymakers adopted an official policy to retaliate against them by ordering his arrest. It did not decide whether probable cause is an obstacle to cases involving on-the-spot arrests. This decision is a positive first step toward allowing critics of government to sue when the police retaliate against them due to their speech — even if the police had some other reason for their arrest. Probable cause for an unrelated offense should not give law enforcement officers free rein to shut down speech they don't like.
Earlier this year, a photojournalist headed to a Black Lives Matter protest in Times Square against the New York Police Department, and took out his camera to film it. As he approached a crowd of protesters, he heard a police supervisor instruct his officers to “just take somebody and put them in handcuffs.”
An officer stopped the journalist and placed him under arrest for failure to comply with an order to disperse. He was soon released, and sued the NYPD for arresting him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. He pointed out the NYPD supervisor’s explicit order to make an arbitrary arrest, and proved that police barricades were positioned to block people from dispersing, making compliance with the dispersal order physically impossible. In all, the evidence of retaliation was strong.
Yet the court not only against the journalist, but told him he was barred from bringing the lawsuit in the first place. Even though the dispersal order may have been faulty, the officer could have had probable cause to arrest him for a separate pedestrian traffic violation, which automatically rendered irrelevant any evidence of retaliation.
The court was relying on what’s called the “no probable cause” rule, which has the force of law in New York. The rule states that in order for an individual to sue for retaliatory arrest, she must prove at the outset that the officer had no probable cause to arrest her for any crime — even one the officer hadn’t thought of at the time of the arrest. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to make that rule the law nationwide.
The Supreme Court will specifically consider the of a Florida man, Fane Lozman, who alleges that his arrest for disorderly conduct at a Riviera Beach city council meeting was made in retaliation for his vocal opposition to a municipal redevelopment plan and for his accusations of corruption on the council. In an amicus brief filed today, the ACLU and the First Amendment Foundation have urged the court to allow his claim. If the court endorses the “no probable cause” rule, it will effectively immunize governmental officials from liability even when they engage in clear-cut retaliation.
There are several reasons why this rule is both unconstitutional and bad policy. First, it allows law enforcement to use an “arrest now, justify later” strategy in which an arresting officer can use a probable cause theory that was not even on the officer’s mind or communicated to the plaintiff at the time of arrest.
This rule would bar retaliatory arrest lawsuits even when there is overwhelming evidence of a retaliatory motive. The enormity of the criminal code, and the ease of mistakenly violating it, practically guarantees this result. Are you carrying a sign attached to a stick thicker than 3/4 inch during a protest? You may have committed a , which the police could use against you in defending against a lawsuit for retaliatory arrest. That’s true even if, say, a police officer told a group of racial justice protesters that the real reason for their arrest was his disdain for Black Lives Matter. If the rule stands, this evidence would be useless in a lawsuit against the officer if he had probable cause to arrest the protesters for any crime.
If the probable cause rule becomes law nationwide, retaliatory arrest lawsuits — a primary tool for deterring police misconduct — will become much harder to win. As a result, police officers who wish to silence political speech will be emboldened and First Amendment rights will be chilled.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that “the law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions.” Let’s hope the court doesn’t cripple an important tool for enforcing this principle.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.