Martin E. O'Boyle, et al. v. Town of Gulf Stream, Florida

Petitioners brought a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a municipality that had filed civil litigation against Petitioners pursuant to an official policy to stop their speech and petitioning activities. The Eleventh Circuit held that Petitioners’ claim failed as a matter of law because they did not prove the absence of probable cause for the civil litigation. In Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), this Court recognized that—in contrast to an “ordinary” retaliation claim—a retaliatory prosecution claim requires proof of an additional causation element: a lack of probable cause. In Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019), this Court extended this requirement to retaliatory arrest claims. The question presented is:

1. Whether the no-probable-cause requirement extends beyond claims for retaliatory criminal prosecution and arrest and applies to claims for retaliatory civil litigation? In Nieves, this Court recognized that the existence of probable cause “does not categorically bar” a retaliation claim when an adverse action is taken “pursuant to an alleged ‘official municipal policy’ of retaliation.” 139 S. Ct. at 1722 (quoting Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 138 S. Ct. 1945, 1954 (2018)). The question presented is:

2. Whether the no-probable-cause requirement applies when a plaintiff has proved an official municipal policy of retaliation?