Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach | |
---|---|
Argued February 27, 2017 Decided June 18, 2018 | |
Full case name | Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida |
Docket no. | 17-21 |
Citations | 585 U.S. ___ (more) 138 S.Ct. 1945; 201 L.Ed.2d 342 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | Jury verdict for defendant, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, No. 9:08-cv-80134, 728 (S.D. Fla. Dec 17, 2014); affirmed, 681 F. App'x 746 (11th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S.Ct. 447 (2017). |
Holding | |
Existence of probable cause to arrest the plaintiff in the present case does not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch |
Dissent | Thomas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might. The case concerned a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed against Riviera Beach by Fane Lozman, who had been arrested while criticizing local politicians during the public comments section of a City Council meeting. The city argued that under Hartman v. Moore he could not sue for retaliation, as they had probable cause to arrest him for the offense of disturbing a lawful assembly. Lozman conceded that they had probable cause, but argued that Hartman, a case about retaliatory prosecutions, did not extend to retaliatory arrests, and that instead Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle allowed his suit.
At oral arguments, justices expressed both sympathy for Lozman and hesitance to issue a ruling that might hinder law enforcement. Their eventual ruling in Lozman's favor was very narrow, holding that the Mt. Healthy test was appropriate "on facts like these",[1] based on the alleged "official municipal policy"[2] of retaliation and the importance of the right to petition. A year later, the court considered the matter again in Nieves v. Bartlett, that time finding that probable cause generally bars a claim of retaliatory arrest.
Lozman had already won once at the Supreme Court against Riviera Beach, in the 2013 admiralty case Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115. The second case was noted for the very rare occurrence of two parties returning to the court over a dispute separate from the first. They settled after the case was remanded, with the city reimbursing Lozman for $874,999 in legal fees and paying a nominal $1 in damages.
138-sct-1945-1951
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search