����ֱ��

Legal Principle at Issue

1. Does probable cause to make an arrest bar a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim?

2. Do Secret Service agents have qualified immunity in the matter of an arrest for which there was probable cause consistent with the Fourth Amendment?

Action

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Secret Service agents, holding that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the arrest, it was not "clearly established" that an arrest supported by probable cause could violate the First Amendment if it was made in retaliation for protected speech. The Court did not decide whether the existence of probable cause bars all retaliatory arrest claims. Instead, it limited its ruling to the qualified immunity question.

Facts/Syllabus

Steven Howards attended a public event in 2006 in Beaver Creek, Colorado, where Vice President Dick Cheney was speaking. Howards disagreed with the Bush administration’s policies and told the Vice President that his "policies in Iraq are disgusting." He later touched Cheney on the shoulder, which Secret Service agents deemed suspicious. Afterward, Agent Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr. and another Secret Service agent, Dan Doyle, arrested Howards. 

He was charged with harassment under state law, but the charge was eventually dropped. Howards filed a lawsuit against the agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, alleging that they arrested him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Importance of Case

The ruling reinforced the principle that government officials are protected from lawsuits for actions taken in their official capacity, unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.