User:Btmetrok/sandbox

= Wood v. Moss =

Wood v. Moss, 134 S.Ct. 2056 (2014) is a United States constitutional law case concerning the scope of First Amendment protections and the doctrine of qualified immunity. In a 9-0 decision through Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the United States Supreme Court held that the relocation of political protesters out of line-of-sight and weapons range during a campaign stop by President George W. Bush during the 2004 Election campaign was not viewpoint discrimination and that the Secret Service agents were entitled to qualified immunity.

Background
On October 14, 2004 in Jacksonville, Oregon, President George W. Bush decided to make an unscheduled stop for dinner at the Jacksonville Inn. The decision followed a nearby appearance for Bush's re-election campaign against Democratic U.S. Senator John F. Kerry. Originally, the President was scheduled to travel down Third Street en route to a cottage where the candidate was to spend the night. Pro-Bush and Anti-Bush demonstrators had notified local law enforcement of their planned protests and had assembled across from one another along the President's original motorcade route of Third Street.

Once the itinerary was adjusted for the stop at the Jacksonville Inn, U.S. Secret Service Agents decided to clear the Third Street area and adjacent alleyway of persons who would have a clear line-of-sight to the Jacksonville Inn, including a patio area of the restaurant. The effect of the initial decision was to remove the anti-Bush demonstrators from the area around the Inn to Fourth Street, while the pro-Bush demonstrators - who had assembled at a location that did not provide a clear vantage point of the Inn - were not instructed to leave the area. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Secret Service Agents recognized that the Fourth Street assembly location was also within weapons range of the Inn patio and again moved all anti-Bush demonstrators to Fifth Street. The result of the two relocation efforts was such that, when the President left the Inn to continue south on Third Street to the cottage location, pro-Bush demonstrators were in plain view of the departing motorcade while anti-Bush demonstrators were not.

Reaction
Although the Court ruled against the free speech claim raised by Moss et al., some commentators have disagreed on how speech-restrictive the decision is. Writing for the New Republic, Margo Schlanger has argued that the opinion reflects the principle that law enforcement entities (including the Secret Service) may not treat groups of speakers differently on the basis of the viewpoints expressed, but may act when an "objectively reasonable security rationale" exists. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog noted that while the Court's opinion focused on the specific facts of the case and the question of security, the opinion makes it difficult for a challenge to win in light of the deference afforded to the Secret Service and the mission of protecting the President.