In a significant ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that Sylvia Gonzalez, a Texas woman who served on a small-town council, can proceed with her lawsuit against her mayor. Gonzalez claims that her arrest was politically motivated, and the high court opined that the federal appeals court had taken an "overly cramped view" of the precedent for suing for First Amendment retaliation claims.

The incident leading to Gonzalez's arrest took place in 2019, shortly after she assumed her position as a council member in Castle Hills, Texas. During her campaign, Gonzalez heavily criticized the city manager, which created tensions within the local political landscape. Shortly after taking office, Gonzalez was arrested on charges of stealing a government document at a council meeting. She maintained that it was an inadvertent shuffling of papers, but city officials suggested possible motives of a cover-up.

The case raised an important First Amendment question for the Supreme Court, namely, when can individuals sue government officials for First Amendment retaliation claims, and when are these lawsuits barred by qualified immunity? Typically, individuals alleging retaliatory arrest need to show that the police lacked probable cause. However, an exception exists if officers frequently exercise discretion not to arrest for minor infractions, such as jaywalking. In this case, Gonzalez's attorneys argued that there were no comparable incidents to demonstrate that police had refrained from arresting others for similar infractions during council meetings.

In its unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzalez should have the opportunity to present her evidence of retaliatory arrest. The court emphasized that the demand for identical situations put forth by the appeals court went too far. Considering that no one had previously been arrested for the particular conduct in question, especially when such a criminal prohibition has been long-standing and the conduct is not novel, it is more likely that an officer had previously chosen not to make an arrest for the same behavior, the court stated.

The court's decision allows Gonzalez's case to proceed further. However, Justice Clarence Thomas provided a dissenting opinion, arguing against exceptions to the probable cause rule for retaliatory arrests. He criticized the court for what he deemed as an expansion of that exception and maintained that probable cause should defeat claims of retaliatory arrest.

Although the charges against Gonzalez were eventually dropped by prosecutors, she filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Additionally, she claimed that city officials had orchestrated a plan to arrest her and remove her from office. While a district court denied qualified immunity to the officers, allowing the case to continue, Gonzalez faced a setback at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that probable cause for her arrest necessarily defeated her retaliatory arrest claim.

Overall, the Supreme Court's ruling marks a significant development in Gonzalez's case, ensuring that she can move forward with her allegations of retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment.