Document: 547 U.S. 250 (2006) HARTMAN et al. v. MOORE No. 04-1495. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 10, 2006. Decided April 26, *252 Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler argued the cause for petitioners. With him on brief were Clement, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Dan Himmelfarb, Barbara L. Herwig, Matthew M. Collette, Stephanie R. Marcus, and Richard Montague. Patrick F. McCartan respondent. Paul Michael Pohl Christian G. Vergonis.[*] JUSTICE SOUTER delivered opinion Court. This is a Bivens action against criminal investigators inducing prosecution in retaliation speech. The question whether complaint states an actionable violation First Amendment without alleging absence probable to support underlying charge. We hold that want must be alleged proven. I In 1980's, respondent William Moore, Jr., was chief executive Recognition Equipment Inc. (REI), which manufactured multiline optical character reader interpreting multiple lines text. Although REI had received some $50 million from States Postal Service develop this technology reading sorting mail, Postmaster other top officials urging mailers use nine-digit zip codes (Zip + 4), would provide enough routing information one line text allow single-line scanning machines sort mail automatically by just line. Besides who obviously stood gain financially adoption technology, Members *253 Congress Government research officers reservations about Service's Zip 4 policy its intended reliance readers. Critics maligned objected foreign sources scanners, decried burden remembering four extra numbers,[1] echoed conclusion reached Office Technology Assessment, scanners preference multiliners cost $1 day operational losses. Moore built opposition 4, lobbying Congress, testifying before congressional committees, supporting "Buy American" rider 1985 appropriations bill. Notwithstanding requests quiet, followed agenda hiring public-relations firm, Gnau Associates, (GAI), governors, Peter Voss, recommended. campaign succeeded, July made what it called "mid-course correction" embraced technology. Brief Respondent 4. But change heart did not extend REI, ensuing order equipment, valued somewhere between $250 $400 million, went competing firm. Not only lose out contract, but soon entangled two investigations inspectors. first looked into purported payment kickbacks GAI Governor Voss Voss's recommendations GAI's services, as case REI; second sought document REI's possibly improper role search new General. very limited evidence linking any wrong-doing, *254 decided bring charges them, 1988 grand jury indicted vice president. At close Government's case, after six weeks trial, however, District concluded there "complete lack direct evidence" connecting defendants wrongdoing alleged, granted defendants' motion judgment acquittal. Equip. Inc., 725 Supp. 587, 596 (DC 1989). then brought Northern Texas civil liability under Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388 (1971),[2] prosecutor five postal inspectors are petitioners here (a sixth having died). His raised causes action, relevant here, claim engineered his criticism Service, thus violating Amendment. course these proceedings has argued, among things, launched investigation well they inkling either schemes mentioned above, targeted activities, pressured Attorney's have indicted. also recovery Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). *255 dismissed claims accordance with absolute immunity prosecutorial judgment, rejected abuse-of-process Valder, Civil Action 3:91-CV-2491-G (ND Tex., Sept. 21, 1992).[3] remaining transferred Columbia, where Moore's suit entirety, Civ. Nos. 92-2288 (NHJ), 93-0324 1993 WL 405785 (Sept. 24, 1993), Appeals Columbia Circuit reinstate retaliatory-prosecution claim. 65 F.3d 189 (1995). permitted discovery matter so far involved, again prosecutor. (NHJ) al., Record, Tab 32 (Memorandum Opinion, Feb. 5, 1998). succeeded FTCA States, dismissal affirmed. 213 705 (2000). remainder back Court, moved summary because supported entitled qualified suit. denied motion, 871 (2004). Courts divided issue requiring 42 C. § 1983 suits. Some Circuits plaintiffs obligation show absence. See, e. g., Wood Kesler, 323 872, 883 (CA11 2003); Keenan Tejeda, 290 252, 260 (CA5 2002); Mozzochi *256 Borden, 959 F.2d 1174, 1179-1180 (CA2 1992). Others, including Circuit, impose no such requirement. Poole County Otero, 271 955, 961 (CA10 2001); Haynesworth Miller, 820 1245, 1256-1257 (CADC 1987). certiorari, 545 1138 (2005), resolve split now reverse. II Official reprisal protected speech "offends Constitution [because] threatens inhibit exercise right," Crawford-El Britton, 523 574, 588, n. 10 (1998), law settled general prohibits government subjecting individual retaliatory actions, prosecutions, speaking out, id., at 592; see Perry Sindermann, 408 593, 597 (1972) (noting may punish person or deprive benefit basis "constitutionally speech"). official actions adverse speaker might unexceptionable if taken grounds, when nonretaliatory grounds fact insufficient provoke consequences, we held subject but-for offending Constitution. See Crawford-El, supra, 593; Mt. Healthy City Bd. Ed. Doyle, 429 274, 283-284 (1977) (adverse employee cannot response employee's "exercise constitutionally freedoms"). When vengeful officer federal, he damages authority Bivens. U.S., 397. III Despite procedural history portending another Jarndyce Jarndyce,[4] us straightforward: *257 plaintiff plead pressing charges.[5] A argue fronts should essential element. Without requirement, say, too readily available. can afflict public disruption expense nothing more, practical terms, than animus, subjective condition easy hard defend against. Petitioners 21-23; National Archives Records Admin. Favish, 541 157, 175 (2004) (allegations misconduct "`easy allege disprove'"). inspectors' view, "objective" imposed plaintiffs, simply filter frivolous. argument complements *258 first, believe traditional tort malicious tells objective requirement be. 24-29. acquittal, begun charging crime place; cousin common law, making latter's no-probable-cause natural feature constitutional tort. Heck Humphrey, 512 477, 483-485, 484, (1994). B fact, think fair call type nub differs set will deal briefly. As invitation rely common-law parallels, certainly ready look elements torts violations, Carey Piphus, 435 247, 258 (1978), best understood more source inspired examples prefabricated components torts. Albright Oliver, 510 266, 277, 1 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., concurring); Bivens, 394; cf. Baker McCollan, 443 137, 146 (1979). And instance could debate closer analog (with element) abuse process (without it). Compare Heck, U. S., 493-496 (SOUTER, concurring judgment). Nor much leverage fear screen federal prosecutors courts unduly put upon volume litigation. basic concern enough, slate blank. Over past 25 years fewer dozen *259 come squarely Appeals, disproportion those cases do require showing cause.[6] C It is, instead, need prove chain causation animus injury, details specific cases, provides strongest justification espoused (or 1983) causal connection defendant's subsequent injury Healthy, 285-287, demonstrate context presents additional difficulty comparing requisite ordinary claims, agent allegedly harboring taking like one. Take example fired criticizing government. Pickering Board Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 563, 566-567 (1968) (allegation school board teacher writing letter critical board's financial administration). While *260 statements, our discussions specify necessary proof discharge, depend circumstances. Cf. 593 ("[A]t least certain types motive sufficient establish violationthere causation"). discharge circumstantial demonstration caused other. 287; Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 270, 21 (1977). clear, moreover, causation, been taken; say prima facie harm, shifts defendant even impetus retaliate complained (such firing employee). 287. If finding fails unconstitutional resulting despite official's mind. ibid. dishonorable act perhaps instances unlawful, colored degree bad does amount anyway. 285-286. claimed conduct charge, differ standard ways. Like *261 same opportunity respond anyway, independently animus. What different always distinct body highly valuable available apt disprove namely Demonstrating charge tend reinforce instigating prosecution, while establishing existence suggest occurred motive. alone mean, course, required cause, mean litigating likely owing powerful evidentiary significance.[7] respect goes prove; difference plaintiff's usually complex supports *262 prosecutor, absolutely immune decision prosecute, Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 431 (1976).[8] Instead, nonprosecutor, official, inspector influenced himself make it, strictly successful inducement prosecute.[9] consequence nonprosecuting acted retaliation, induced initiated urging. Thus, merely person's own injurious another. F.3d, 710 ("In find procured `a causation' initiation proceedings"); Barts Joyner, 865 1187, 1195 1989) (plaintiff seeking incident her police, *263 securing arrest, deceived prosecutors); Dellums Powell, 566 167, 192-193 1977) (where allegation directed malicious-prosecution stand independent pressure exerted police); Smiddy Varney, 665 261, 267 (CA9 1981) ("[W]here police maliciously reckless disregard rights arrested person, liable suffered district attorney files unless presumption rebutted"). Herein lies problem Evidence inspector's necessarily pressed otherwise. Moreover, factual divining influence investigator enforcement prosecutor's mind, added legal obstacle longstanding regularity accorded decisionmaking. Reno American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 471, 489-490 (1999); Armstrong, 517 456, 464-466 (1996). legitimate takes lightly discard, given position judicial intrusion discretion high minimal, Wayte 470 598, 607-608 (1985). allegation, then, needed both bridge gap agent's address regularity. trial stage, link whose injured plaintiff. connection, shown, cause. *264 open us, give special prominence bridging gap, level, leaving pleading circumstances allow. disclosure thinking part, example, great significance addressing closing gap. So rubber stamp investigative staff police. 281-283 (evidence education, formally rehire teacher, nominally superintendent, bore animus). though, rare consequently poor guides structuring action. most instance, unrealistic expect reveal mind record discloses, reported statement galvanized merits indictment wanted attract interest firm looking tough lawyer.[10] *265 Accordingly, looms large, being potential every obvious value. True, dispositive: conclusive presence guarantee decision. part combined go forward reasonable suspend behind decision, Bordenkircher Hayes, 434 357, 364 (1978) (emphasizing "so long cause," generally discretionary), inference unconstitutionally motivated infected Our sense means free incremental reckoning. party point treating important element way adding time expense. 7, supra. succeed worse unabashed careerist, vitality. sum, complexity bent addressed specifically defining Probable practically all cases. Because probative force, mandatory little cost, makes *266 pleaded reversed, remanded further consistent opinion. ordered. THE CHIEF ALITO took consideration case. GINSBURG, whom BREYER joins, dissenting. reviewing made, determined "[t]he [came] proverbial smoking gun." 871, 884 2004). indicated engaged "unusual prodding," strenuously reluctant S. press Moore. Ibid. Following precedent, "once shows [conduct sheltered Amendment] motivating factor charges," defending pursued Id., 878. Recognizing alone, assign proving prosecution. agreement urged that, importuning, nonetheless Under Court's allocation, saddles plaintiffthe victimwith entirely "baseless prosecutions" *267 checked. 879. retaliators present barely persuade their thin information, accomplish mission free. Their victim, hand, incur costs entailed mounting defense, sustain reputational loss well, neither compensable law. D. Circuit's speechprotective formulation, "[a] [v. (1971),] remains possible . strong combines weak [investigation ensuing] [defending] officials' animus." 881. That situations "are rare," seems me, warrant "structuring action," ante, 264, precludes relief arise. For reasons fully developed opinion, conclude full accord 287 (1977), Appeals' strikes proper balance. would, therefore, affirm judgment. NOTES [*] Ruda James I. Crowley filed League Cities amici curiae reversal. [1] Seaberry, Durenberger Begins Campaign Against Nine-Digit Code, Washington Post, 1981, p. E4 (describing Senator David Durenberger's reference "`a mnemonic plague contagious digititous'"). [2] "Bivens established victims right recover court statute conferring right." Carlson Green, 446 14, 18 (1980). Though respects suits state Rev. Stat. 1979, 1983. Wilson Layne, 526 603, 609 Waxman & Morrison, Kind Immunity? Officers, State Criminal Law, Supremacy Clause, 112 Yale J. 2195, 2208 (2003) ("Section applies local officers, [and] inferred parallel officers"). [3] wife originally jointly. Her standing. [4] 2 Dickens, Bleak House 85 (1853). [5] contends (like us) exceed appellate jurisdiction 37-39, mistaken. true disagreement over arose qualified-immunity defense; stresses interlocutory appeal rejection summary-judgment stage questions turning definition violation, sufficiency claimed. Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 528 says going entitlement fact. case: arguing kind them. agreeing inspectors, win, holding beyond tort, directly implicated defense properly appeal. ibid.; 592-593 (1998); 285-286 [6] many challenges Second, Fifth, Eleventh Circuits, Izen Catalina, 398 363 2005) (per curiam); 872 252 Singer Fulton Sheriff, 63 110 1995); Post Fort Lauderdale, 7 1552 1993); 1174 1992); Magnotti Kuntz, 918 1990). [7] Indeed, though nevertheless acknowledged cause's 881 2004) ("Given ordinarily suffices initiate absent intent. possible, animus"). [8] An still investigatory capacity, extend. Buckley Fitzsimmons, 509 259, 274-276 (1993) (no acts administrative capacity); Burns Reed, 500 478, 492-495 (1991) (absolute attach offers advice regarding interrogation practices). charged acting App. 45, affirmed 705, 2000), now. [9] No conducting view promote complaint. 33-34, 38-45. Whether consequences ever justify recognizing us. [10] structure alternative, dispensing admission irrespective sole purpose initiating acquiesce inducements agents, themselves harbored 469, 3 (1996) (leaving "whether [criminal] satisfy similarly situated `involving admissions [prosecutors] discriminatory purpose'" (brackets original)). seem proposing retirement plans include possibility winning lottery. Unambiguous rare, hassles adequacy predictable result, exemption noprobable-cause allowed.

Category: 2