Supreme Court Rejects Free-Speech Suit From Anti-Bush Protesters

Supreme Court Rejects Free-Speech Suit From Anti-Bush Protesters

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The free-speech right to protest against the president does not guarantee that opponents can be as close to the chief executive as supporters, the Supreme Court said Tuesday, throwing out a suit brought by critics of former President George W. Bush.

Instead, the justices said Secret Service agents have broad authority to protect the chief executive, and this includes forcibly removing groups of protesters who might threaten his safety.

The decision is one of several in which the high court has turned away claims that the Bush White House maintained an “unwritten” policy of using the Secret Service to keep protesters away from the president when he appeared in public.

In Tuesday’s opinion for a unanimous court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said nothing in the law would forbid Secret Service agents from acting quickly to move people who could be seen as threatening.

The decision tosses out a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union over an incident outside a restaurant in Jacksonville, Ore., in the fall of 2004. Bush was in the area campaigning for re-election and decided to stop for dinner at an outdoor restaurant a few blocks from where he would spend the night.

Two groups had assembled. One was made up of supporters, and a second group, numbering about 200, were opponents who carried signs critical of Bush and his policies. When the president sat down in the dining area, the protesters could be heard from just a half-block away. Secret Service agents decided to move the group of opponents two blocks away. This removed a potential threat from someone firing a gun or tossing an explosive, the agents said later.

But the group of supporters stayed nearby, and they could be seen by the president as his motorcade left the restaurant.

Several of the protesters joined a lawsuit against the Secret Service, alleging agents violated the 1st Amendment by denying them “equal access to the president.”

A federal judge in Oregon and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco cleared the suit to proceed. Those judges said the agents had placed the protesters at a “comparative disadvantage in expressing their views.”

But the Supreme Court disagreed in a case called Wood vs. Moss and said agents had violated no clearly understood constitutional right.

“No decision of which we are aware would alert Secret Service agents engaged in crowd control that they bear a 1st Amendment obligation to ensure that groups with different viewpoints are at comparable locations at all times,” Ginsburg said.

Two years ago, the court also threw out a lawsuit brought by a Colorado man who was arrested by Secret Service agents for confronting and criticizing Vice President Dick Cheney on a Denver street.

AFP Photo/Karen Bleier

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke with alleged conman and former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon on his “War Room” show Monday. The interview was what anthropologists might call … bananas.

Keep reading...Show less
Marjorie Taylor Mouth Makes Another Empty Threat

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

I’m absolutely double-positive it won’t surprise you to learn that America’s favorite poster-person for bluster, blowhardiness and bong-bouncy-bunk went on Fox News on Sunday and made a threat. Amazingly, she didn’t threaten to expose alleged corruption by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by quoting a Russian think-tank bot-factory known as Strategic Culture Foundation, as she did last November. Rather, the Congressperson from North Georgia made her eleventy-zillionth threat to oust the Speaker of the House from her own party, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), using the Motion to Vacate she filed last month. She told Fox viewers she wanted to return to her House district to “listen to voters” before acting, however.

Keep reading...Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}