Wood v. Moss

Last updated

Wood v. Moss
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 26, 2014
Decided May 27, 2014
Full case nameTim Wood and Rob Savage, Petitioners v. Michael Moss, et al. [1]
Docket no. 13-115
Citations572 U.S. 744 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 2056; 188 L. Ed. 2d 1039
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorMoss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009); on remand, 750 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Or. 2010); affirmed in part, 675 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2012); rehearing en banc denied, 711 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 571 U.S. 1067(2013).
Holding
Secret Service agents are entitled to qualified immunity from First Amendment claims after they removed protesters who had crossed their security perimeter from demonstrating against the President.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityGinsburg, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case holding secret service officers who moved protesters away from the president were protected by qualified immunity. [2] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. The case arose out of a campaign stop President George W. Bush made during the 2004 presidential campaign. Prior to the campaign event, Bush dined at a restaurant near where a group of supporters and a group of protesters had gathered. Two secret service agents directed local police to move the protesters to protect the president. The protesters sued the agents in the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon. The agents filed a motion to dismiss which was eventually granted based upon the Supreme Court's decision.

Contents

Background

Factual background

President George W. Bush went to Jacksonville, Oregon for a campaign event for the 2004 presidential election. Two groups assembled, with permission, on opposite sides of a street near the venue: a group of supporters and a group of protesters. President Bush decided to make an unplanned stop for food at the Jacksonville Inn prior to the event, causing the protesters to move closer to the restaurant. [3] :2060 Two secret service officers, with the help of local police, made the decision to move the protesters to another block, causing the protesters to then be further away from restaurant than the supporters. After the President's meal, the President's motorcade left the restaurant and its route left protesters too far away to be seen or heard. [3] :2064

Procedural history

The protesters filed suit against the two secret service agents in U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The protesters claimed the actions of the officers had violated the protesters' First Amendment rights, specifically engaging in view point discrimination by moving the protesters further away than the supporters. The agents moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and further arguing they were protected by qualified immunity. The District Court denied the motion. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then reversed on interlocutory appeal, but instructed the lower court to allow protesters the opportunity to amend their complaint. The protesters supplemented their complaint with allegations the secret service systematically attempted to remove protesters from the vicinity of event sites and motorcade routes. Ibid. [3] :2065 The agents again moved to dismiss and the District Court denied the motion. On a second interlocutory appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. [3] :2066

Opinion of the Court

In a unanimous opinion, authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held the two secret service agents were entitled to qualified immunity. [3] :2070 To circumvent the doctrine of qualified immunity, the protesters would need to show the violation of a constitutional right and that the right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct. [3] :2066–67 Only one prior Supreme Court case had addressed the qualified immunity of secret service agents. Hunter v. Bryant , 502 U.S. 224(1991) applied qualified immunity to secret service agents who had arrested an individual for a threat to assassinate the president. In other cases, the Court has recognized the importance of protecting the chief executive. Ibid. [3] :2067

Although the Ninth Circuit had found fault with the secret service agents for failing to provide a reason for treating the supporters and protesters differently, the Supreme Court found that no existing law would have alerted the secret service agents that they had an obligation under the First Amendment to give each group comparable locations at all times. [3] :2068 The Court was persuaded there was a security motive for moving the protesters, who had been in weapons range with an unobstructed view of the President dining on the patio and there would have been no such rationale for moving the supporters. Ibid. No existing law required the secret service to interfere with the speech rights of supporters more than security concerns necessitated. [3] :2068–69

The Court also rejected the protesters' allegation that the secret service agents moved the protesters to engage in viewpoint discrimination. [3] :2069 After noting that a White House manual urging political operatives to work with secret service designate a protest area outside of the view of presidential motorcades was not actually the policy of the secret service itself, the Court noted the actual agents themselves would need to have acted with discriminatory intent. [3] :2069–70 The Court found it persuasive that a security motive existed for moving the protesters. [3] :2070

The Supreme Court's decision dismissed the claims against the two secret service agents, however, other claims against the Jacksonville Chief of Police, the city of Jacksonville and former Sheriff remained active. Protesters who were detained were certified as a class whereas individual claims of excessive force, including a claim from Michael Moss, the named respondent in Wood v. Moss, proceeded individually. [4]

Responses and analysis

This case was one of several to allege the Bush administration used the secret service to keep protesters away from Bush's public appearances. [5]

The New Republic found the decision to be a hopeful one for future protections for free speech. Although the protesters lost, The New Republic noted that the Court indicated that acting purely based on viewpoint discrimination might have yielded a different result. The New Republic also found Ginsburg's treatment of the field manual as disapproving. [6]

The American Civil Liberties Union released a statement expressing its disappointment with the decision to dismiss the case. The organization believed a jury should have been able to decide whether the secret service was censuring speech. [7]

Related Research Articles

Free speech zone Area set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting

Free speech zones are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.

Samuel Alito Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served since January 31, 2006. He is the second Italian-American justice to serve on the Supreme Court, after Antonin Scalia, and the eleventh Roman Catholic.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Fourth Amendment itself despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied by the importance of the right violated.

The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security. United States v. Reynolds, which involved alleged military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

Edith Brown Clement American judge

Edith "Joy" Brown Clement is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, Louisiana.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

<i>Hepting v. AT&T</i>

Hepting v. AT&T is a United States class action lawsuit filed in January 2006 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the telecommunications company AT&T, in which the EFF alleges that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the communications of the United States, including AT&T customers, businesses and third parties whose communications were routed through AT&T's network, as well as voice over IP telephone calls routed via the Internet.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. Following a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the United States Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by U.S. postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution, which was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled, 5-2, that in order to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4-2, that unlawfully present aliens arrested in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot sue for money high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that top government officials were not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained after the September 11 attacks. The decision also "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a strip search of a middle school student by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

<i>Doe v. Holy See</i> lawsuit against the Catholic Church

Doe v. Holy See, 557 F.3d 1066, was a lawsuit involving the sovereign immunity status of the Holy See in relation to the Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States. The threshold question of law in the case was whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows the Holy See, a sovereign state in international law, to be sued for acts of local Catholic clergy.

Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the scope of qualified immunity for government officials working in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specifically, the Supreme Court held that BLM employees could not be liable for an alleged retaliation claim against Robbins, a farm owner, because other avenues for relief were available. Though these workers may have been tough in negotiations with Robbins over access over his land, none of that rose to the level of a constitutional violation.

2013 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.

Hernandez v. Mesa was a pair of United States Supreme Court cases in which the court held that the precedent established under the 1971 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents decision did not extend to claims based on cross-border shootings.

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified whether a case becomes moot when a party provides a settlement offer that satisfies a named plaintiff's claims in a class action suit and whether a government contractor is entitled to "derivative sovereign immunity".

John K. Bush American judge

John Kenneth Bush is an American attorney and United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Bush graduated from Harvard Law School and practiced in Washington, D.C. and Louisville, Kentucky, where he served as president of the local branch of the Federalist Society. In 2017, he was nominated to a seat on the Sixth Circuit by President Donald Trump. During his confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Bush had authored pseudonymous blog posts in which he disparaged gay rights, compared abortion to slavery, and cited alt-right websites promoting birtherism and other false right-wing conspiracy theories. He was confirmed in the Senate by the Republican majority on a party-line vote of 51–47 in July 2017.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

References

  1. ↑ "Docket File 13-115". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
  2. ↑ "Wood v. Moss". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wood v. Moss,No. 13-115 , 572 U.S. ___(2014).
  4. ↑ Associated Press (December 3, 2015). "Protesters detained at 2004 Bush appearance in southern Oregon get class-action status". OregonLive.com. Retrieved May 30, 2017.
  5. ↑ Savage, David G. (May 7, 2014). "Supreme Court rejects free-speech suit from anti-Bush protesters". Los Angeles Times. ISSN   0458-3035 . Retrieved October 14, 2017.
  6. ↑ Schlanger, Margo (March 28, 2014). "The Supreme Court Gives a Subtle Boost to Free Speech". New Republic. Retrieved May 29, 2017.
  7. ↑ "ACLU Comment on Wood v. Moss Ruling". American Civil Liberties Union. May 27, 2014. Retrieved May 29, 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.