Term: 2011
Docket: 11-262
Virgil D. 'Gus' Reichle, Jr., Et Al., Petitioners v. Steven Howards
- Pro
11-262 REICHLE V. HOWARDS DECISION BELOW: 634 F.3d 1131 JUSTICE KAGAN TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: Petitioners, two Secret Service agents on protective detail, arrested respondent following an encounter with Vice President Richard Cheney. Petitioners had probable cause to arrest respondent, who in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 falsely denied making unsolicited physical contact with the Vice President. Respondent thereafter brought a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim against petitioners. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, as the Tenth Circuit siding with the Ninth Circuit held here, the existence of probable cause to make an arrest does not bar a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim; or whether, as the Second, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, probable cause bars such a claim, including under Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006). 2. Whether the Tenth Circuit erred by denying qualified and absolute immunity to petitioners where probable cause existed for respondent's arrest, the arrest comported with the Fourth Amendment, it was not (and is not) clearly established that Hartman does not apply to First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims, and the denial of immunity threatens to interfere with the split-second, life-or-death decisions of Secret Service agents protecting the President and Vice President. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-1201, 09-1202
The U.S. Supreme Court case Virgil D. 'Gus' Reichle, Jr., et al., v. Steven Howards (2011) involved a dispute over the arrest of Steven Howards following his interaction with then-Vice President Richard Cheney in 2006. During this encounter, Howards made critical remarks about the Iraq War and touched Cheney's shoulder, leading to his arrest by Secret Service agents for assault on the Vice President. However, charges were later dropped and Howard sued the agents for violating his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him due to his criticism of administration policy. In their decision, The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Secret Service agents stating that they are entitled to immunity from such lawsuits if they had probable cause for an arrest - even if it was allegedly motivated by retaliation against free speech - as long as there is evidence supporting a valid legal reason behind it.
In the case of Virgil D. 'Gus' Reichle, Jr., et al. v. Steven Howards, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to grant Secret Service agents immunity from a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim made by Howards. She argued that this ruling could potentially enable law enforcement officers to abuse their power and suppress free speech rights without fear of legal consequences if they can show probable cause for an arrest on any charge, no matter how minor or unrelated it may be to the actual reason for the arrest. In her view, such a broad interpretation of qualified immunity undermines citizens’ constitutional right to express dissenting views without fear of retribution from those in authority.
