en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fane_Lozman
1 correction found
On June 18, 2018, in an eight-to-one opinion authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court once again ruled in Lozman's favor, vacating the Eleventh Circuit opinion and remanding to the appellate court with instructions to determine whether the City acted with animus in Lozman's arrest.
This misstates the Supreme Court's remand. The Court did not instruct the Eleventh Circuit simply to decide whether the City acted with animus; it sent the case back for consideration of several preserved issues under the Mt. Healthy framework.
Full reasoning
The Supreme Court's 2018 decision did not remand with a single instruction to determine whether Riviera Beach acted with animus.
What the Court actually held was narrower: it said that, in this unusual municipal-retaliation case, the existence of probable cause did not automatically bar Lozman's First Amendment claim. The Court then said that on remand, the Eleventh Circuit could consider any preserved arguments supporting the district court's judgment, and specifically identified multiple issues that could be considered:
- whether a reasonable juror could find that the City formed a retaliatory policy to intimidate Lozman during the closed-door session;
- whether a reasonable juror could find that the arrest was an official act of the City; and
- whether, under Mt. Healthy, the City proved Lozman would have been arrested regardless of any retaliatory animus.
The Court also explicitly cautioned that its ruling did not mean Lozman was automatically entitled to relief or even to a new trial.
So the article's wording is inaccurate because it reduces the remand to a single question—whether the City acted with animus in the arrest—when the Court actually remanded for broader further proceedings on multiple issues.
1 source
- LOZMAN v. RIVIERA BEACH | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
On remand, the Eleventh Circuit may consider any arguments in support of the District Court's judgment that have been preserved by the City, including whether a reasonable juror could find that the City formed a retaliatory policy to intimidate Lozman during its closed-door session, whether a reasonable juror could find that the arrest constituted an official act by the City, and whether, under Mt. Healthy, the City has proved that it would have arrested Lozman regardless of any retaliatory animus.