We have the fourth and final opinion of the day . It is a per curiam opinion in Gonzalez v. Trevino, announced by the Chief.
This was a case about what kinds of evidence a plaintiff alleging that she was arrested in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment must show to qualify for the exception outlined in Nieves v. Bartlett, which holds that although plaintiffs must generally show that police did not have probable cause to arrest them, they can also show that they were arrested when others who had not been engaged in protected speech would not have been. The question comes to the court in the case of a 76-year-old Texas woman who was arrested after she – accidentally, she claims – picked up a petition that she had initiated and placed it in her binder after a long meeting. She was charged with violating a state law that prohibits tampering with government records.
The per curiam opinion agrees with Gonzalez, the woman who was arrested, that the court of appeals took a view of Nieves that was too narrow. Requiring her to provide examples of people who also mishandled a government petition but were not arrested “goes too far,” the court holds.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1025_1a72.pdf
So. None of the cases we are waiting for were on the opinion docket for today.
We will do this again tomorrow. Same bat time...same bat station.
Ok just heard this also! Thanks for your reply!