Back in 2006, Steven Howards was arrested at a Colorado shopping mall by the Secret Service after he approached Dick Cheney and told the then V.P. that his Iraq policies were "disgusting."
In a lawsuit, Howards later claimed that his arrest had been in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights.
When the case finally made its way up to the United States Supreme Court, a unanimous bench held that the agents were entitled to immunity from civil suit because this particular area of law--regarding retaliatory arrests--hadn't been clearly established at the time of Howards' arrest.
(In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg noted that the arrest was appropriate because, unlike other law-enforcement personnel, Secret Service agents are required to make "swift, on the spot" decisions as to a public official's safety.)
How's that for Howards' end?
To view a copy of the Supreme Court's decision, please use the following link: Reichle v. Howards
To read an article on the Supreme Court's decision, please use the following link: The Washington Post.
* * *
Inquiries about this case may be directed to Newman Ferrara attorneys, Randolph McLaughlin or Jeff Norton, at 212-619-5400