In Gomez v. Toledo, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff filing a lawsuit under Section 1983 does not have to initially plead and prove absence of probable cause in order to defeat defendant's qualified immunity defense. The case involved an individual who was arrested but later acquitted, and then filed a lawsuit against the arresting officer for violation of his constitutional rights. The lower courts dismissed his claim on grounds that he failed to allege lack of probable cause in his complaint. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that it is not necessary for plaintiffs to anticipate defenses such as qualified immunity in their initial pleading; rather it is up to defendants to raise these defenses during litigation process.

In the Gomez v. Toledo case, there was no dissenting opinion recorded. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court Justices held that a plaintiff in a suit for damages on account of an alleged unconstitutional arrest does not have to allege and prove that the defendant acted unconstitutionally with malicious intent or bad faith; it is enough if he shows that the defendant intentionally deprived him of his constitutional rights.