News 09 Apr. 2024
Curtis Announces New Partners and Counsels Across Offices in Spring 2024
more
News 25 Jan. 2024
Counsel Mohannad A. El Murtadi Suleiman Addresses “Africanization” of International Investment Law
Event 18 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at FDI Moot Shenzhen
News 25 Jul. 2023
Partner Eric Gilioli Ranked in Top 10 Influential Energy & Natural Resources Lawyers in Kazakhstan in Business Today
Client Alert 28 Dec. 2023
U.S. to Impose Secondary Sanctions on Non-U.S. Banks For Financing Russia’s Defense Industry
News 28 Aug. 2024
Curtis Recognized for Excellence in Arbitration in Chambers Latin America Guide 2025
Event 22 Aug. 2023
Partner Dr. Claudia Frutos-Peterson to Speak at Arbitration and ADR Commission of the ICC Mexico
News 15 Aug. 2023
Legal Reader Publishes Article on Dr. Majed Alotaibi’s Arrival as Senior Counsel in Curtis’ Riyadh Office
News 31 Jul. 2023
Curtis Welcomes Senior Saudi Advisor, Dr. Majed Alotaibi, to its Riyadh Office
News 24 Aug. 2023
Curtis Attorneys Quoted in CoinDesk on FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s Strategy Ahead of His Criminal Trial
Client Alert 10 Jul. 2024
EU Adopts New Restrictive Measures Against Belarus
Client Alert 26 Jun. 2024
The EU Adopts its 14th Sanctions Package Against Russia
news
Legal 500 UK Recognizes Curtis Practices and Attorneys in 2025 Edition
Curtis Attorneys Featured in IBA Insolvency and Arbitration Working Group’s New Reports
News 25 May. 2023
Click here to download the full press release.
New York, May 25, 2023 – Acting as a pro bono counsel for law professors Brandon L. Garrett (Duke Law School), Thomas Healy (Seton Hall Law School), Brenner M. Fissell (Villanova University), Colin Miller (University of South Carolina School of Law), Sheldon Nahmod (Chicago-Kent College of Law), Seth W. Stoughton (University of South Carolina School of Law), and Rebecca Tushnet (Harvard Law School), Curtis filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of granting the petition for certiorari in Sylvia Gonzalez v. Edward Trevino, II, et al., No. 21-50276, a case involving a person’s right to assert a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim when objective evidence demonstrates that that person was arrested in retaliation for their protected, political speech. The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to take the case this fall.
Petitioner Sylvia Gonzalez is a retiree and former city councilwoman who organized a petition – which garnered hundreds of signatures – in favor of replacing an unpopular city manager. She presented her petition at a city council meeting after which she unwittingly placed the petition in her bag. Although Ms. Gonzalez returned the petition to the mayor before leaving the building, the mayor and the city manager she tried to replace had her arrested weeks later for a Class A misdemeanor under a Texas statute that prohibited “intention-ally destroy[ing], conceal[ing], remov[ing], or otherwise impair[ing] the verity, legibility, or availability of a government record.” Tex. Penal Code § 37.10(a)(3). Ms. Gonzalez, a 72-year old woman, was then held in jail for a day and handcuffed to a metal bench wearing an orange jail shirt. She was also denied accommodations like using a restroom that had a door or standing up to stretch her legs.
Ms. Gonzalez filed a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim alleging that she was arrested for the content of her protected, political speech. Defendants moved to dismiss Ms. Gonzalez’s claim and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied that motion. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss. Ms. Gonzalez petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, but the Fifth Circuit denied that petition. The Fifth Circuit’s denial of Ms. Gonzalez’s petition for a rehearing was based on an interpretation of Supreme Court precedent regarding First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims that is incorrect, overly restrictive, and unduly burdensome of citizen’s First Amendment rights, and is also inconsistent with decisions of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in First Amendment retaliatory arrest cases.
Curtis appellate partner Michel Paradis stated, “It’s such an important case. This country was built upon the idea that citizens must be able to criticize public officials without fear of being targeted by the government for harassment and retaliation. We not only should have that right, but the Constitution guarantees that right. The Fifth Circuit broke with the rest of the country in a way that threatens the rights of us all. It therefore falls to the Supreme Court to make clear from the highest levels of the Justice Department to the smallest local community board, government officials cannot send the police after their critics with impunity simply by finding some pretextual loophole for doing so.” Litigation associate Rebecca Meyer was also part of the team representing amici.
Institute of Justice lawyer and petitioner’s counsel Anya Bidwell, added, “Petition-stage amicus briefs are much more impactful than merits-stage amicus briefs. Through the strength of their arguments and the reputation of their authors and signatories, they help convince the Court that the case is worth looking at. Michel and his team submitted just such a brief. If cert gets granted, it will be in large part due to their amazing work.”
Appellate Litigation
Michel Paradis
Partner
New York
+1 212 696 6000
Houston
+1 713 759 9555
event
Fernando Tupa to Speak on Indirect Expropriation at Investment Arbitration Seminar organized by the Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje
Senior Associate Pablo Calderón to Speak at Greater Houston Partnership Decarbonization Event with Japanese Delegation
We use cookies on our website to enhance your browsing experience, match your interests and assess our website performance. We do not share information with any third-party for marketing purposes. Please view our privacy policy to learn more about the use of cookies on our website. By continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies.