In the case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2017), Fane Lozman sued the city for violating his First Amendment rights by arresting him during a public comment session at a city council meeting. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lozman, stating that probable cause does not always bar claims for retaliatory arrest due to protected speech under the First Amendment. This ruling was significant as it clarified that even if there is probable cause for an arrest, this cannot be used as an absolute defense against allegations of retaliation against free speech. The court held that while police officers are generally immune from lawsuits if they had probable cause to make an arrest, exceptions exist when arrests are made in retaliation for exercising one's constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, Justice Thomas disagreed with the majority's decision to grant a new trial to Fane Lozman based on his First Amendment retaliation claim. He argued that there was no clear evidence that city officials arrested him at a 2006 council meeting because they wanted to retaliate against him for his previous criticisms of their redevelopment plan. Instead, he believed it was more likely they arrested him because he violated rules during the meeting by refusing to leave when asked and discussing topics not on the agenda. Furthermore, Justice Thomas expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially impact future cases involving arrests made in good faith but later challenged as retaliatory actions.