Wood v. Moss
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13-115 | 9th Cir. | Mar 26, 2014 | May 27, 2014 | 9-0 | Ginsburg | OT 2013 |
Holding: Two Secret Service agents who ordered that individuals protesting the policies of President George W. Bush be moved away from the outdoor area at which the president was eating, placing them further away from the president than the president"s supporters, are entitled to qualified immunity from the protesters" lawsuit alleging viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment when there was a legitimate security rationale for the removal of the protesters.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on May 27, 2014.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Too close to the president for comfort (Lyle Denniston, May 27, 2014)
- Argument analysis: Why not take the simple route? (Lyle Denniston, March 26, 2014)
- Argument preview: Crowd control -- or message control? (Lyle Denniston, March 21, 2014)
- Court to rule on birth-control mandate (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston, November 26, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 05/15/2013 | Application (12A1096) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 27, 2013 to June 27, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
| 05/16/2013 | Application (12A1096) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until June 27, 2013. |
| 06/11/2013 | Application (12A1096) to extend further the time from June 27, 2013 to July 26, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
| 06/20/2013 | Application (12A1096) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 26, 2013. |
| 07/26/2013 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 26, 2013) |
| 08/07/2013 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 25, 2013. |
| 08/12/2013 | Waiver of right of respondents Ron Ruecker, Eric Rodriquez, Tim R. McClain and Randie Martz to respond filed. |
| 09/16/2013 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 25, 2013. |
| 10/24/2013 | Brief of respondents Michael Moss, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 11/12/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 26, 2013. |
| 11/13/2013 | Reply of petitioners Tim Wood and Rob Savage filed. (Distributed) |
| 11/26/2013 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 12/13/2013 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Tim Wood and Rob Savage. |
| 01/08/2014 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 26, 2014 |
| 01/10/2014 | Brief of petitioners Tim Wood and Rob Savage filed. |
| 01/13/2014 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. |
| 01/13/2014 | Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. The record is electronic. |
| 01/16/2014 | Record received from U.S.D.C. of Oregon. 1 Envelope. |
| 01/17/2014 | Brief amici curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures, et al. filed. |
| 01/17/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice, P.C. in support of neither party filed. |
| 02/03/2014 | CIRCULATED. |
| 02/10/2014 | Brief of respondents Michael Moss, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/18/2014 | Brief amici curiae of Professors of Civil Procedure filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/18/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/12/2014 | Reply of petitioners Tim Wood and Rob Savage filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/26/2014 | Argued. For petitioners: Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Steven M. Wilker, Portland, Ore. |
| 05/27/2014 | Judgment REVERSED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
| 06/30/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Issue: (1) Whether the court of appeals erred in denying qualified immunity to Secret Service agents protecting the president by evaluating the claim of viewpoint discrimination at a high level of generality and concluding that pro- and anti-Bush demonstrators needed to be positioned an equal distance from the President while he was dining on the outdoor patio and then while he was travelling by motorcade; and (2) whether respondents have adequately pleaded viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment when no factual allegations support their claim of discriminatory motive and there was an obvious security-based rationale for moving the nearby anti-Bush group and not the farther-away pro-Bush group.