Reichle v. Howards

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsQualified ImmunityFirst AmendmentRetaliatory ArrestBivensqualified immunityclearly established lawretaliatory arrest

Facts

While protecting Vice President Cheney at a shopping mall, Agent Doyle overheard Howards say on his cell phone that he was going to ask the Vice President how many kids he had killed that day. Doyle then observed Howards tell the Vice President that his policies in Iraq were disgusting and touch the Vice President's shoulder as he departed. After Doyle briefed Agent Reichle, Reichle approached Howards, asked whether he had assaulted or touched the Vice President, and Howards falsely denied touching him. Reichle then arrested Howards, and Howards later claimed the arrest was retaliation for his criticism of the Vice President.

Issue

At the time of Howards' arrest, was it clearly established that a retaliatory arrest supported by probable cause could violate the First Amendment, such that the agents were not entitled to qualified immunity? The Court declined to decide whether such a First Amendment right actually exists and resolved only the clearly established question.

Rule

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. A right is clearly established only if it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right, and existing precedent must place the constitutional question beyond debate; the right must be defined in a particularized, not general, sense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2008 in Phoenix, federal agents assigned to a cabinet secretary's security detail arrested Lena Ortiz after she loudly criticized the secretary at a public event. The agents had undisputed probable cause to arrest Ortiz for knowingly making a materially false statement during their on-scene investigation, and Ortiz later sued for retaliatory arrest under the First Amendment.

Are the agents entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim?

Explanation. Qualified immunity applies unless the official violated a right that was clearly established at the time. The majority held that, at the relevant time, it was not clearly established that a retaliatory arrest supported by probable cause could violate the First Amendment. The Court did not decide whether such a right exists; it held only that reasonable officials could have believed probable cause defeated the claim.