Eighth Circuit
Thurairajah v. City of Ft. Smith, Arkansas, 925 F.3d 979, 985 (8th Cir. 2019) (“Thurairajah’s First Amendment right to be free from retaliation was clearly established at the time of his arrest.”).
Hoyland v. McMenomy, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1111, 1125 (D. Minn. 2016), aff’d, 869 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2017) (stating that “Hoyland’s right to verbally engage and criticize the Officers was clearly established at the time of his arrest”).
Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149, 1157 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Officer Peters’ actions are not insulated by the arrest warrant. This country has a long history of protecting expressive conduct on First Amendment grounds, especially when the American flag is the mode of expression. A reasonably competent officer in Officer Peters’ position would have concluded no arrest warrant should issue for the expressive conduct engaged in by Snider.”).
Yzaguirre v. Norling, CIV. 10-3793 DWF/JJK, 2011 WL 6739505, at *4 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2011) (stating that “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could conclude that Defendant arrested Plaintiff as a direct result of her decisions to retain counsel and to not meet with Defendant as scheduled (and not on the basis of probable cause for the underlying offense)”) (footnote omitted).
Gearin v. Rabbett, 10-CV-2227 PJS/AJB, 2011 WL 317728, at *10 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2011) (“As a general matter, by alleging that defendants initiated and pursued a baseless criminal action against her, arrested her without probable cause, and searched her building without probable cause—and that defendants took these actions to retaliate against her for exercising rights protected by the First Amendment—Gearin has adequately pleaded First Amendment retaliation claims.”).
Cornelious v. Brubaker, 01CV1254(MGD/JGL), 2003 WL 21511125, at *8 (D. Minn. June 25, 2003) (stating that “at the time of Cornelious’ arrest, it was clearly established that speech, other than fighting words, was protected under the First Amendment”).
Gainor v. Rogers, 973 F.2d 1379, 1387 (8th Cir. 1992) (“It is . . . fundamental that a lawful arrest may not ensue where the arrestee is merely exercising his First Amendment rights.”).