“we conclude that the doctrine of arguable probable cause does not apply to a First Amendment retaliatory inducement to prosecution claim.”
How later courts described this case
- “we conclude that the doctrine of arguable probable cause does not apply to a First Amendment retaliatory inducement to prosecution claim.”
- “Unlike the Fourth Amendment claim, however, the First Amendment does riot itself require lack of probable case in order to establish a retaliatory inducement to prosecution claim.”
- involving malicious prosecution claim under FTCA
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I write separately to express dismay over the herculean effort the plaintiff has had to expend simply to get his day in court. It has taken twenty-five years, a criminal trial, eleven appellate judges as well as all participating members of the United States Supreme Court — not one of whom has rejected his claim as a matter of law — to get to the point that a jury will finally hear and decide if government officials engaged in pay-back because the plaintiff sought to do business with the government. To say that this has not been the government’s finest hour is a colossal, and lamentable, understatement.