Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056

Background

Protesters and supporters assembled on opposite sides of the Jacksonville, Oregon street; President Bush planned to stop for dinner at the Jacksonville Inn.
Two Secret Service agents directed local police to clear the protesters and move them two blocks away from the Inn to a position beyond weapons reach, while supporters remained in place.
The protesters later argued the actions violated First Amendment rights and reflected viewpoint discrimination; the district court denied dismissal and the Ninth Circuit reversed, then remanded after amendments alleged an unwritten policy to suppress dissent.
On remand, amended pleadings alleged the Secret Service acted with a security rationale, and the district court again denied dismissal; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial on qualified-immunity grounds.
The Supreme Court held the agents were entitled to qualified immunity, focusing on whether the officials violated a clearly established First Amendment right given the security context.
The decision limits liability by requiring a showing that it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that the conduct was unlawful under the circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the conduct violated a clearly established First Amendment right	Moss argued the move amounted to viewpoint discrimination against protesters.	Agents claimed the security concerns justified different treatment and no clearly established law required equal distance.	Yes; the right was not clearly established for equal access; qualified immunity applies.
Whether the Secret Service actions infringed the First Amendment by relocating protesters but not supporters	Displacement targeted disfavored expression; equal access was required.	Security needs justified the relocation and no precedent required equality of positions.	No clearly established requirement to maintain equal positions; security rationale sufficed.
Whether the complaint adequately stated a First Amendment claim under Bivens after Twombly/Iqbal	Allegations plausibly showed viewpoint discrimination violating the First Amendment.	The claims lacked plausible factual support for a constitutional violation.	The pleadin g standards were met; qualified immunity analysis governs later steps.
Whether officials are shielded by qualified immunity given the security context	The conduct violated clearly established rights regardless of security concerns.	Given Hunter v. Bryant and related decisions, accommodation for reasonable error applies in security contexts.	Yes; the agents were entitled to qualified immunity.
Whether there was an unwritten Secret Service policy to suppress dissent attributed to all agents	Alleged unwritten policy from White House coordination showed viewpoint suppression.	No evidence of a policy; cannot infer a policy from isolated misconduct and officials cannot be held liable.	No; the map and security needs undermined the inference of a policy; not liable.

Key Cases Cited

Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) (government cannot exclude peaceful speakers for disfavored views)
United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) (speech rights have limits; timing and manner matter)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (clearly established inquiry for qualified immunity)
Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (accommodation for reasonable error in security contexts)
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (government may not regulate speech based on content)
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (President’s security concerns and limits on speech)
United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) (First Amendment contextual limits on access)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard; inferred from context)