Discrimination against protesters
Tim Wood and Rob Savage v. Moss
In brief
The agents won protection from civil-damages claims because the Court ruled that the law did not clearly prohibit their actions.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 27, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Ginsburg
- What it’s about
- Tim Wood and Rob Savage, who opposed President Bush, alleged that Secret Service agents moved them farther from him than Bush supporters because of their views.
- Who it affects
- The ruling protects the agents in Wood and Savage’s suit from civil-damages claims.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and ruled that the agents had qualified immunity (protection from damages because the law did not clearly establish their conduct was unlawful); it did not decide whether the protesters adequately alleged viewpoint discrimination.
The case also raised whether Wood and Savage adequately alleged that officials treated them differently because of their views under the First Amendment.
Question presented
1. Is the Secret Service eligible for qualified immunity, which would shield it from liability for civil damages assuming the Service performed its duties reasonably? 2. Did the protestors sufficiently plead a viewpoint discrimination claim under the First Amendment?
What the Court decided
Holding
The agents are entitled to qualified immunity. 711 F. 3d 941, reversed.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said the law did not clearly prohibit the agents’ efforts to protect the President.
The vote
- Majority author
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
What's next
The decision completes the Supreme Court’s review of the case.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Wood
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.