First Amendment claim for retaliatory prosecution accrued when plaintiff learned that defendants had indicted him on charges that he believed to be retaliatory, thus statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff was indicted, not when he was acquitted.
Nonprofit organization did not have clearly established right under First Amendment to provide religious discipleship program within 500 feet of park with playground equipment to individuals subject to statute precluding persons convicted of certain sex crimes from being present within 500 feet of such a park.
Plaintiff posted a mock police department page on Facebook and was arrested under a state law that makes it illegal to use a computer to disrupt or impair police functions, indicted by a grand jury, and acquitted after a jury trial; plaintiff had deleted comments on the page that indicated it was fake and copied the department’s warning on its own page word for word; court says whether officers had probable cause was a difficult question, but lack of previous case afford the officers qualified immunity on First Amendment retaliation claim; court holds that officers’ televised announcement o
Recognizing First Amendment right to publicly film police, but holding that right was not clearly established in 5th Circuit in August 2015.
Plaintiffs were activists and members of the Sunset Activist Collective and associated with CopBlock, critical of law enforcement, who chalked anti-police messages on the sidewalks of Las Vegas and were arrested under the local graffiti statute; they filed suit for retaliatory arrest; court finds case falls within narrow exception of Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct.
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for escorting patron at country fair off premises because he was spewing profanities about police and wearing shirt stating, “Fuck the Police,” which was protected speech; factual issues precluded summary judgment on claim that plaintiff’s arrest for disorderly conduct was in retaliation for protected speech.
Law was not clearly established that officer’s enforcement of protest zones violated First Amendment, officer entitled to qualified immunity for preventing journalist from engaging with counterprotester.
Reporter who published stories on Facebook was arrested and detained for violation of a Texas statute that made it a crime to, with intent to obtain a benefit, solicit or receive information from a public servant that the public servant has by means of their office or employment and that has not been made public; offense was based on reporter’s confirming last names of people in stories with a Laredo police officer; arrest infringed on her right to ask questions of public officials; officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim because violation of Constitution was “obviou
Organization hosts food-sharing events in park to communicate message that scarce resources are skewed toward military and away from feeding the hungry; park rule that required city permission for social service good-sharing events violated First Amendment with respect to these demonstrations; intermediate, rather than strict scrutiny applied to rule; rule provided no guidance to when, how, or why city would grant permission; rule was not narrowly tailored nor was it a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation; individual members and organization had standing to sue.
In suit by members of synagogue against anti-Israel protestors and city, synagogue members had standing (sufficient injury) to bring claims but protestors’ actions on public sidewalks were protected by First Amendment.