In a 1944 case involving self-incrimination, Supreme Court Justice Hugo
Black focused on the connection between the First Amendment and other
provisions in the Bill of Rights protecting people’s liberties.

One way of suppressing speech is to arrest individuals who have expressed unpopular views. In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the Supreme Court remanded a case to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to see whether this had happened when a city councilwoman was arrested for having a petition in her folder for the removal of the mayor.

Hartman v. Moore (2006) said that those who allege their First Amendment
rights are being retaliated against must prove there is no probable cause
for the retaliation.

The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that most claims of arrest in retaliation
for speech protected by the First Amendment would fail if there was
probable cause for the arrest. However, in Nieves v. Bartlett, the Court
held that there could be an exception if someone similarly situated who did
not engage in protected speech was not arrested.

A federal district judge ruled in Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice that an executive order by President Donald Trump unlawfully retaliated against the law firm’s constitutionally protected speech and inhibited rights of association. In addition to violating those First Amendment protections, the president’s executive order also violated due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth

In Reichle v. Howards (2012), the Court said there was not a First
Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by
probable cause

In Wayte v. United States (1985), the Supreme Court upheld the prosecution
methods for not registering for the draft against a due process and First
Amendment challenge.