In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people who are retaliated against by government officials don’t have to prove impossible things before they can vindicate their First Amendment rights in court—IJ’s second victory at the high court this term. 

The journey to 1 First Street started five years ago, when I received a phone call from an acquaintance at a law firm. His aunt’s friend, Sylvia Gonzalez, had been arrested for supposedly trying to steal her own petition calling for the removal of a city manager. The 72-year-old woman was terrified after spending a day in jail, in an orange jumpsuit, without access to her medications. But his firm’s pro bono practice couldn’t represent Sylvia because a judge had signed off on a warrant for her arrest, which made the case procedurally complicated. Supreme Court precedent, issued that same year in Nieves v. Bartlett, held that as long as there is probable cause, government officials generally cannot be sued for retaliatory arrests. 

When I explained Sylvia’s plight to my colleagues at IJ, they were outraged—but also excited. The challenges that made the case a dealbreaker for my friend’s firm were exactly what made it a must-file lawsuit for us. That’s because Sylvia’s situation presented a timely and important question about government accountability: Can laundering a First Amendment violation through a warrant really allow officials to arrest their critics with impunity? 

So we brought a suit on Sylvia’s behalf to find out and to set precedent nationwide. To position the case just right, we did a lot of homework. For example, we went to the Bexar County records office and photocopied 10 years of data about the statute that was used for Sylvia’s arrest. Turns out it had primarily been used to charge people accused of forging government identification documents like driver’s licenses—and had never once been used in a situation involving a petition or anything remotely similar to the charge against Sylvia. Every piece of evidence we found about the highly unorthodox behavior of city officials suggested they were motivated by a desire to punish their critic and send a message to the rest of the town to not mess with the powers that be.

 Sylvia’s tormentors invoked qualified immunity, arguing that the presence of a warrant meant that they should escape scrutiny. But a federal judge disagreed. He understood that although Nieves is a high bar, Sylvia cleared it because of all the evidence and data we presented. Undeterred, the officials appealed to the 5th Circuit.

Let’s pause here. In a normal case not involving government officials, there would be no appeal. The case would proceed to discovery, and the defendants would have to wait until final judgment to challenge the decision in a circuit court. But qualified immunity is not just a defense against liability; it is a defense against a lawsuit. The doctrine turns standard legal procedure on its head—which is one reason lawyers are often reluctant to represent victims of government abuse. But Sylvia had IJ and our thousands of generous supporters behind her, so she was prepared for a long, hard fight. 

On appeal, the 5th Circuit turned Nieves into an impossible standard, demanding evidence of someone who took their own petition, exactly as Sylvia was accused of doing, but was not arrested. Because no such person existed (nor do unicorns), we were out of luck.

So we asked the Supreme Court whether Nieves immunized retaliatory arrests unless a plaintiff could point to specific evidence of non-arrests. On June 20, 2024, the Court’s answer was “no.” Eight Justices agreed that the 5th Circuit’s reading of Nieves was too restrictive. Instead, they articulated a more flexible evidentiary standard that will make it much easier for plaintiffs like Sylvia to carry their burden at the beginning of a lawsuit. 

It is true that Sylvia’s experience was hurtful and humiliating. But it was not in vain. As her case heads back to the 5th Circuit to reevaluate the officials’ plea for immunity—one more step on the long road to finally presenting the facts of her case to a jury—the law is now a safer place for the First Amendment and everyone who enjoys its protection.

Anya Bidwell is an IJ senior attorney and co-leader of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability.