Supreme Court On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Texas councilwoman who was put in prison as part of a political vendetta.
Sylvia Gonzalez and her attorney for the nonprofit Institute of Justice (IJ) sued Castle Hills Mayor J.R. Trevino and other officials, alleging they conspired to oust him from office as retaliation for his criticism of the city manager, thereby violating his First Amendment rights.
The Fifth Circuit Court dismissed her case, stating that she did not present the evidence necessary to pursue a “retaliatory arrest” case, which would show that others had not been arrested after engaging in similar conduct. She was allegedly arrested for trying to remove a document from a city council meeting that she claimed she did not already know she had, and the charges were eventually dropped.
The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, finding that Gonzalez’s research showing that the law under which she was charged had never been used in her county to prosecute anyone for “trying to steal a nonbinding or expressive document” was enough to support her claim. The Fifth Circuit ruled against her, saying she needed more.
In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court stated, “The Court thought Gonzalez would have to provide very specific comparative evidence — i.e., identifiable examples of people who ‘mishandled the government petition’ in the same way as Gonzalez did but were not arrested,” adding that “the demand for virtually identical and identifiable comparative evidence goes too far.”
Supreme Court hears case of Texas grandmother who was jailed after criticizing city government
Castle Hills police arrested then-Councilwoman Sylvia Gonzalez in July 2019 on a rare charge of tampering with a public document. (Courtesy of the Institute of Justice)
Gonzalez’s story began in 2019, when voters complained that the city manager, Ryan Rapelye, was unresponsive, particularly to their concerns over the condition of their streets.
As soon as she was elected, Gonzalez supported a non-binding petition seeking to replace the city manager with the previous manager, whom residents believed had done a better job. Another resident introduced the petition at Gonzalez’s first city council meeting. According to court records, discussion of the manager’s job performance “became contentious,” and the meeting was extended until the next day.
At the end of the meeting, Gonzalez said he straightened up the papers scattered across his podium and put them in his binder before speaking to a voter.
According to court documents, a police officer interrupted the conversation and told Gonzalez that Trevino wanted to talk to her. Gonzalez went back to the stage and Trevino asked where the petition was. Gonzalez said she didn’t know. Trevino allegedly asked her to look in her binder, and said he saw a clip inside.
In fact, the petition was in a binder, so Gonzalez handed it in and thought nothing of it. But two months later, she learned from a neighbor that a warrant had been issued for her arrest.
“I didn’t even know what I was accused of,” Gonzalez, a 72-year-old grandmother, told Fox News. “I had never been to jail … and for an old woman like me, it was very scary.”
Moms sue state over ‘creepy’ baby blood database and privacy concerns
“I had never been to jail before … and for an older woman like me, it was very scary,” Sylvia Gonzalez told Fox News Digital. (Courtesy of the Institute of Justice)
Trevino and Police Chief John Siemens briefly used the displaced petition to launch a criminal investigation against Gonzalez, his suit alleges. Three weeks into the investigation, the police chief assigned a “trusted friend and local attorney” to take over as a “special detective,” according to Gonzalez’s complaint.
The special detective produced an arrest affidavit that alleged Gonzalez was “openly antagonistic” toward the city manager from their first meeting, saying “she wanted him fired.” The affidavit also accused Gonzalez of misleading a woman by “telling multiple fabricated stories” about Rapley in order to obtain her signature, according to court documents.
Detectives found probable cause to believe Gonzalez had stolen his own petition when he put it in a binder with other papers, violating a constitutional obligation. Texas restrictions According to court documents for the defendants, they are accused of intentionally removing or destroying government records.
On April 29, 2024, the lawn in front of the US Supreme Court will be watered with sprinklers. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
Anya Bidwell, senior counsel at the Institute for Justice, said the statute is typically used in cases involving fake Social Security numbers, official check forgery and fake green cards. She said the IJ looked at 10 years of Bexar County data and found “nothing even remotely similar” to Gonzalez’s case.
Instead of seeking a summons for a nonviolent crime, the special detective took the unusual step of seeking an arrest warrant, the lawsuit says. The special detective went directly to a district court judge, bypassing the Bexar County District Attorney’s office.
“They wanted to punish me, and they wanted to make sure I went to jail. And they did a good job,” Gonzalez said.
Gonzalez surrendered, was handcuffed, spent the entire day in jail, and had his picture printed on the evening news. Even though the DA’s office dropped the charges, his brief political career was over.
Gonzalez sued Trevino, Siemens, Special Detective Alexander Wright and the city in 2020, alleging they deprived him of his rights under the First and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. US Constitution,
Click here to get the Fox News app
“This is a great day for the First Amendment and for Sylvia Gonzalez, who has courageously fought against the retaliatory actions of government officials,” Bidwell said.
“The Supreme Court’s amendment to its First Amendment retaliation doctrine ensures that Americans can seek justice when they have evidence of a retaliatory arrest,” Bidwell said. “Retaliatory arrests undermine the foundation of our democracy, and this decision helps protect the rights of all Americans to speak out without fear of retaliation.”
