US Supreme Court Wood v. Moss 13-115

Decision here.

   During a campaign trip, President Bush and his motorcade were driving down a particular street in Jacksonville, Oregon.  There were demonstrators on both sides of the street (pro-Bush on one side, anti-Bush on the other).  Bush made an unexpected decision to have dinner at a restaurant with a patio.

   With the change in plans, the anti-Bush demonstrators were now within weapons range of Bush with an unobstructed line of sight.  The pro-Bush demonstrators were not.  The anti-Bush demonstrators were required to move (twice) for security reasons.  When the motorcade eventually continued, it passed by the location where all the demonstrators originally had been, but now that they had been moved the anti-Bush demonstrators were a couple blocks away from the motorcade.

   They sued the secret service agents, alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.  The agents tried to claim qualified immunity, but the Ninth Circuit wasn't having it.  The agents appealed.

   The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to interfere with someone's speech because the government doesn't like what that person has to say.  But it also doesn't guarantee people the right to publicize their message wherever, whenever, and however they wish.  In a case like this, where there is a legitimate security reason for moving a group of protesters, the government is allowed to do so.  The Ninth Circuit had denied qualified immunity because only the protesters were moved (while the Bush supporters were allowed to remain where they were and eventually had better access to the president because of that).  But there is no case law which establishes any responsibility on the part of the secret service to keep groups with opposing views equidistant from the president in the case of sudden changes of plans.  There's also no case law which establishes any responsibility of the government to restrict a second group's speech absent a security concern just because a first group's speech has already been restricted because of a security concern.  And in this case, there was never any valid security reason to move the pro-Bush demonstrators.

   The Supreme Court held that the agents were entitle to qualified immunity, reversing the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.