Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088

Howards was arrested by Secret Service agents Reichle and Doyle for allegedly assaulting the Vice President and for making a false statement to a federal official, with possible charges stemming from a state harassment charge later dismissed.
Howards’ arrest occurred after he criticized the Administration’s Iraq policies and touched the Vice President, prompting review by the protective intelligence team.
Howards brought § 1983 and Bivens claims in district court, alleging Fourth Amendment violations (unlawful arrest/search) and First Amendment retaliation; the district court denied qualified immunity, and the Tenth Circuit partially affirmed.
The Tenth Circuit held no Fourth Amendment violation due to probable cause for a false-statement arrest, but allowed a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim to proceed, suggesting Hartman v. Moore did not extend to arrests.
We granted certiorari to address whether a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim can lie despite probable cause and whether such right was clearly established at the time of arrest.
We reverse: at the time of Howards’ arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could violate the First Amendment, granting Reichle and Doyle qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim can lie where probable cause exists	Howards argues Hartman extends to arrests, enabling retaliation claims despite probable cause.	Reichle and Doyle contend no clearly established right; probable cause defeats a retaliatory-arrest claim.	Not clearly established; probable cause can defeat the claim.
Whether the law was clearly established at the time of Howards’ arrest	Hartman and related circuit decisions clearly prohibited retaliatory arrests with probable cause.	Hartman did not clearly extend to retaliatory arrests, leaving the possibility of qualified immunity for arresting officers.	Not clearly established; Reichle and Doyle entitled to qualified immunity.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (U.S. 2006) (no-probable-cause rule for retaliatory-prosecution claims; debate on extension to arrests)
DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1990) (retaliation for protected conduct actionable under §1983 even if act would be proper for other reasons)
Poole v. County of Otero, 271 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2001) (retaliatory prosecution context; no-probable-cause relevance to First Amendment claims)
Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2006) (Hartman applied to retaliatory arrests in some circuits)
MeCabe v. Parker, 608 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2010) (Hartman’s reach to retaliatory arrests questioned post-Hartman)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause for traffic stop does not cure constitutional flaws based on motivations; context separate)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (clearly established standard and qualified immunity framework)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (clearly established standard requires right to be beyond debate)