Gonzalez v. Trevino (22-1025)

argument 22-1025

Gonzalez v. Trevino

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 25m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue the Court is addressing in Gonzalez v. Trevino?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning, case twenty two ten twenty five, Gonzalez versus Trevino. Ms. Bidwell.

Unknown 0:07

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Respondents try to overread Nieves in two ways. They need to win on both attempts. Each is wrong and would lead to results this court could not have intended. First, respondents say Nieves's rule, designed for a representative case of in the field law enforcement, now insulates all government officials. Picture the than skinned bureaucrat scouring for a crime to pin on his critics. According to respondents, Section nineteen eighty three has nothing to say about that. Second, respondents parse Nieves like a statute to say that it limits plaintiffs to a particular type of comparative example. To be sure, Nieves did recognise that evidence of subjective motive alone would not get a plaintiff an inference that this motive caused the adverse action.

Unknown 1:06

But Nieves does not blind courts to all but one type of objective evidence of causation. Respondent's position extends Nieves beyond its moorings. If the mayor in this case got in front of T V cameras and announced that he was going to have Ms Gonzalez arrested because she challenged his authority, the existence of probable cause would make this evidence legally irrelevant. Respondent's position would also toss out of court a critic arrested for jaywalking on a remote country road, even if his town had never arrested anyone for jaywalking before, simply because he couldn't find a non critic who jaywalked on the same spot. Nieves balanced important First Amendment concerns to protect the on the street first responder, making a now or never decision to arrest the suspect in his grasp.

Unknown 1:54

It did not so loosely dispense with the First Amendment interests as to give government armchair quarterbacks a free hand at the time of their choosing. to punish their critics. I welcome this Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:07

Uh in Nieves we uh dealt with an an arrest and Uh is it different here because you have uh a warrant process, uh you have an investigation? Does that break the causal link that we would have in uh a case just where a police officer arrests uh the uh plaintiff?

Unknown 2:28

Uh no, Your Honor, it doesn't. In fact, the fact that warrant exists here helps us for two reasons. Number one, uh we have an analog at common law, abuse of process, because warrant is a classic uh legal process. But number two, when it comes to but forecasation, magistrates are required to look at the arrest affidavit in order to issue a warrant. So the arrest affidavit which we say would not have been issued had it not been for retaliatory animus is something that magistrates have to take into account and it is a but forecusation. And as this court explained in Bostok and just this term in Murray, there could be many but for causations. Our burden is to show that had it not been for animus, that a

Unknown 3:18

Would not have occurred, that's just one bot but for causation. one but but for cause and we meet that requirement here.

Clarence Thomas 3:25

You say that you use um abuse of process as the analogue. Have we ever used that in in in these uh retaliation cases?

Unknown 3:35

You didn't, but that was because there was no process. So in Losmann you had an on the spot arrest. In Rikel, you had an on the spot arrest. In Nieves, you had an on the spot arrest. So this is the first time that this court actually sees a case with a warrant coming before it. And just as at common law uh a w a plaintiff could bring a claim, even if there was a warrant, for example in Jackson versus America. American uh telephone company. There was a warrant for a serious offense, it was a warrant for uh assault with a deadly weapon, and it was properly issued, but a plaintiff still had a cause of action because that warrant was used as a pretext for private purposes inconsistent with the exigencies of the writ in the words of common law.

Elena Kagan 4:21

Your answer is uh quite interesting and and I think informative because as you say if the warrant never should have been sought. Um it's a different kind of part four. But also in many jurisdictions Florida and California