Larry Bushart, a retired law enforcement officer in Perry County, Tennessee, posted a Facebook meme in September 2025. Thirty-seven days later, he walked out of jail. On May 20, 2026, Perry County announced an $835,000 settlement to end his federal civil rights lawsuit. The case is now a working example of how First Amendment retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can convert a wrongful speech arrest into a six-figure payout, even after the Supreme Court raised the bar in Nieves v. Bartlett.
What happened in Perry County
Under a community vigil post for Charlie Kirk, Bushart shared a pre-existing meme of Donald Trump quoting his own words after the January 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa: "We have to get over it." The meme was a political joke about Trump's response to that Iowa shooting. The shooting in Perry, Iowa, occurred more than 500 miles from Perry County, Tennessee.
Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems obtained an arrest warrant treating the meme as a threat against Perry County High School in Linden, Tennessee. According to coverage from CBS News, Weems acknowledged on the record that he knew the meme referenced the Iowa school, but said he believed Bushart intended to "create hysteria" at the Tennessee school sharing the county name.
A magistrate set bond at $2 million. Bushart could not post it. He sat in jail for 37 days. He lost his post-retirement job, missed his wedding anniversary, and missed the birth of a grandchild, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). After national attention to the arrest, prosecutors dropped the charges in October 2025.
In December 2025, Bushart filed a federal civil rights complaint against Sheriff Weems, Investigator Jason Morrow, and Perry County. He was represented by FIRE attorneys Adam Steinbaugh and Cary Davis, with Phillips & Phillips, PLLC serving as local counsel. The complaint pleaded First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourth Amendment claims for wrongful arrest, prosecution, and incarceration, and a Monell claim against the county. The parties announced the $835,000 settlement on May 20, 2026.
Why the law usually protects officers in cases like this
Speech-arrest plaintiffs run into a Supreme Court decision called Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___ (2019). Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a fractured Court that, as a general rule, if officers had probable cause to make the arrest, that probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim brought under § 1983. The opinion imported the no-probable-cause structure from Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), which had imposed a similar requirement on retaliatory-prosecution claims.
That holding means defendants in speech-arrest suits often get summary judgment as long as they can point to some objective justification for the arrest. It is a major reason First Amendment retaliation cases without physical injury have historically settled in the $5,000 to $50,000 range.
The crack in the wall: the Nieves exception
Roberts left an opening. A plaintiff may proceed despite probable cause by presenting "objective evidence" that "otherwise similarly situated individuals" not engaged in the same protected speech were not arrested. In other words: if officers routinely ignore identical conduct from people who are not saying something they dislike, the arrest looks like punishment for the speech itself.
Bushart's lawyers leaned on the obvious-pretext quality of the arrest to satisfy that exception. The meme was a stock political joke. The shooting it referenced was in another state. The sheriff admitted on the record that he knew that. Lower courts have been working out the contours of this exception ever since Nieves, and a Harvard Law Review case comment tracks how the doctrine is being applied.
Why municipalities settle for six figures
Three forces push counties toward settlement once a case like Bushart's survives the early motions:
-
Monell exposure. A local government can be held directly liable under § 1983 when a constitutional violation flows from official policy, custom, or the decisions of policymakers. A law review analysis from the Washington University Journal of Law & Policy explains how Monell exposure makes municipalities, not just individual officers, the real defendants in retaliation suits.
-
Jury appeal. A 37-day incarceration on a $2 million bond for a Facebook post is the kind of fact pattern jurors remember. Lost employment, a missed anniversary, and a missed grandchild's birth translate cleanly into compensatory damages.
-
Fee shifting. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, prevailing civil rights plaintiffs can recover attorneys' fees. That changes the math for defendants weighing trial against settlement.
Background guidance from the Congressional Research Service walks through the elements of First Amendment retaliation claims and the current legal landscape. Legal commentary at Reason places the Bushart settlement within the broader Section 1983 retaliation framework.
An emerging pattern
First Amendment retaliation has become the standard civil remedy when officers arrest someone for protected speech. Cases involving extended detention, lost employment, or strong Monell evidence have produced six- and seven-figure outcomes, with near-$1 million settlements documented in police-whistleblower and politically motivated firing cases. CNN's national coverage framed the Bushart outcome as a rare six-figure speech-arrest settlement; Tennessee's NewsChannel 5 emphasized the personal toll on Bushart.
A practical playbook for anyone arrested over speech
If you have been arrested in connection with something you posted, said, or wrote, the work of a future civil rights claim starts immediately:
-
Preserve the original speech. Screenshot the post, the comments, the timestamps, and the URL. Save the device that posted it. Do not delete or edit anything.
-
Document officer statements. Write down, as soon as possible, every statement officers made about the speech. Admissions that officers knew the context, knew the speech was protected, or knew the referenced event happened elsewhere can be decisive evidence under the Nieves exception.
-
Obtain the paperwork. Get the booking record, the warrant, and the affidavit supporting the warrant. The affidavit is often where pretext becomes visible.
-
Talk to civil rights counsel before resolving the criminal case. A plea, even to a reduced charge, can foreclose later § 1983 claims tied to the same conduct. Get advice that weighs both the criminal exposure and the civil rights case before you sign anything. Organizations like FIRE focus specifically on speech-based prosecutions and may take qualifying cases at no cost; FIRE's case page for Bushart describes the constitutional claims it pleaded.
What comes next for Perry County
The settlement closes the federal case but leaves open questions about policy, training, and who pays. Tennessee Lookout's state-level coverage raises the local fiscal and accountability stakes, including whether the payout came from insurance or taxpayers and whether other Tennessee agencies will adjust how they handle viral-meme complaints. For defense lawyers and civil rights practitioners, the immediate lesson is that the Nieves exception is doing real work in cases where officers leave a clear trail of their own awareness.
Related reading
Sources
-
FIRE — VICTORY: Tennessee man jailed 37 days for Trump meme wins $835,000 settlement
-
CBS News — Retired police officer jailed for 37 days over Charlie Kirk post wins $835,000 settlement
-
Congressional Research Service — First Amendment: Government Retaliation for Protected Expression
-
Tennessee Lookout
Note: This article contains AI-assisted content and has been reviewed by our editorial team.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: GavelDaily.com is an advertising and information service, not a law firm. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. The information you provide will be shared with licensed criminal defense attorneys in your area who may contact you about your inquiry. All submissions are treated as confidential by our service, but attorney-client privilege does not attach until you formally retain an attorney. Any attorney you connect with through this service is independently responsible for their legal advice and representation. Free consultations are subject to individual attorney availability. If you are facing an immediate legal emergency, contact your local public defender's office or call 911.