Aaron Tobey v. Terri Jones, 706 F.3d 379

After 9/11, Congress created the TSA to secure air travel and conduct passenger screenings.
TSA screening in Richmond included enhanced screening via AIT, which Tobey opposed.
Tobey displayed the Fourth Amendment text on his chest and removed clothing to protest the screening.
TSA agents called for assistance; RIC police handcuffed and arrested Tobey for disorderly conduct.
Tobey was held over an hour and later released; the charge was dropped; Tobey sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens.
The district court dismissed the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims but denied the First Amendment claim; the appeal proceeded on the First Amendment issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tobey plausibly pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim	Tobey alleges seizure for protected protest and retaliatory motive.	The conduct was reasonable given Tobey’s behavior and safety concerns.	Tobey stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim.
Whether Tobey’s rights were clearly established at the time	Right to peaceful non-disruptive protest in an airport was clearly established.	No on-point case clearly established the claimed rights in this precise airport-screening context.	The rights were clearly established; the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.
Whether causation and proximity between speech and arrest support the claim	Arrest followed Tobey’s protest without probable cause, linking speech to arrest.	Arrest could be reasonable to maintain security and order.	Causation and proximity supported a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim at this stage.

Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility requires more than conclusory statements)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (objective reasonableness in qualified immunity)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (modifies Saucier, permitting sequential analysis)
Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (U.S. Supreme Court 2012) (no clearly established right when probable-cause-based arrest is involved)
Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (bizarre conduct can be protected expressive activity when intent to convey a message exists)
Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Board of Airport Comm’rs, 482 U.S. 569 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (nonpublic forum speech protections extend to nondisruptive expression)
Kokinda v. United States, 497 U.S. 720 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (airport speech restrictions in nonpublic forums)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (reasonableness in nonpublic forums must consider purpose and circumstances)
Rendon v. TSA, 424 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes context of TSA speech in screening area)
Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001) (First Amendment retaliation principle)