▁protected ▁speech ▁under ▁the ▁First ▁Am end ment . ▁In ▁City ▁of ▁Houston ▁v . ▁Hill ▁( 1 9 8 7 ), ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁ruled ▁that ▁the ▁First ▁Am end ment ▁" prote ct s ▁a ▁significant ▁amount ▁of ▁ver bal ▁criticism ▁and ▁challenge ▁directed ▁at ▁police ▁officers ." ▁ ▁In ▁Sw art z ▁v . ▁Ins og na ▁( 2 0 1 3 ), ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁for ▁the ▁Second ▁Circ uit ▁ruled ▁that ▁extending ▁the ▁middle ▁finger ▁at ▁an ▁officer ▁is ▁not ▁grounds ▁to ▁stop ▁or ▁arrest ▁an ▁individual . ▁ ▁In ▁March ▁ 2 0 1 9 , ▁the ▁Federal ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁for ▁the ▁Six th ▁Circ uit ▁ruled ▁in ▁favor ▁of ▁a ▁woman ▁who ▁file d ▁suit ▁against ▁a ▁police ▁officer ▁who ▁increased ▁the ▁sever ity ▁of ▁a ▁traffic ▁ticket ▁after ▁she ▁extended ▁her ▁middle ▁finger ▁at ▁him ▁upon ▁receiving ▁the ▁original ▁ticket . ▁In ▁June ▁ 2 0 1 9 , ▁the ▁Federal ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁for ▁the ▁E ighth ▁Circ uit ▁ruled ▁in ▁favor ▁of ▁a ▁man ▁who ▁file d ▁suit ▁against ▁a ▁police ▁officer ▁who ▁arrested ▁him ▁for ▁shout ing ▁a ▁der og atory ▁obsc en ity ▁at ▁him . ▁In ▁both ▁cases , ▁the ▁courts ▁ruled ▁that ▁the ▁pla int iffs ' ▁First ▁Am end ment ▁rights ▁had ▁been ▁viol ated ▁and ▁rejected ▁the ▁officers ' ▁assert ions ▁of ▁qualified ▁imm unity . ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁ ▁Fail ure ▁to ▁obey ▁a ▁police ▁order , ▁a