Reichle v. Howards

Holding: The petitioners – two Secret Service agents -- are entitled to qualified immunity from suit involving a claim that they arrested the respondent in retaliation for remarks he had made about then-Vice President Cheney because, at the time of the arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to a First Amendment violation.

Plain English Summary: Police officers (and federal agents, too) cannot be sued for violating someone’s rights, if the right that was supposedly violated was not formally recognized to exist at the time the officers acted. If the Court finds that no such right existed at that time (whether or not it might be recognized later), then the claim cannot go to court in a trial. In this case, the private individual who approached Vice President Cheney in 2006 claimed that he could not be arrested for anti-war remarks he made to Cheney. The Court, without deciding whether the man would now have a right to make those remarks without being arrested, found that he would not have a clear right to do so as of 2006. That was enough to reject Howards’ lawsuit.

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

• Brief for Virgil D. Reichle, Jr. and Dan Doyle
• Reply Brief for Virgil D. Reichle, Jr., Dan Doyle

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners

• Brief for the United States
• Brief for the International City/County Management Association 
• Brief for FBI Agents Association and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association

Merits Briefs for the Respondent

• Brief for  Steven Howards

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent

• Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Colorado
  

Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party

• Brief for William G. Moore, Jr.

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (10th Cir.)
• Petition for certiorari
• Amicus brief of Colorado et al.
• Amicus brief of United States
• Letters from counsel