WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said
on Monday it will decide whether a man arrested after touching
then-Vice President Dick Cheney and criticizing his Iraq war
policies can sue two Secret Service agents.
The justices agreed to hear an Obama administration-backed
appeal by agents Virgil Reichle and Dan Doyle, who argue that
they cannot be held personally liable for damages because their
arrest of Steven Howards was supported by sufficient cause.
Howards claimed the agents retaliated against him for
exercising his constitutionally protected free-speech rights.
He claimed his arrest violated his rights because the agents
lacked probable cause to believe he had committed a crime.
Howards was arrested after he approached Cheney during a
June 16, 2006 visit to a mall in Beaver Creek, Colorado. When
Howards learned Cheney was at the mall, a Secret Service agent
said he overheard Howards say into his cell phone, "I'm going
to ask him (Cheney) how many kids he's killed today."
Howards waited to meet with Cheney, who was greeting
people, shaking hands and posing for photographs. He then
confronted Cheney and told him his "policies in Iraq are
disgusting." As Howards departed, he touched Cheney's right
shoulder with his open hand.
Howards denied assaulting Cheney when questioned by
Reichle. The agent said Howards falsely denied touching Cheney.
Doyle confirmed that he witnessed the incident and demonstrated
how Howards had contact with Cheney.
The agents decided to arrest Howards, who was turned over
to local law authorities and charged with harassment under
state law. The charges were later dismissed.
Howards, of Colorado, then sued, claiming he had been
arrested unlawfully and seeking financial damages. A federal
judge ruled the lawsuit could proceed and that decision was
later upheld by a federal court of appeals.
The Obama administration and attorneys for the agents
warned of the consequences if such lawsuits were allowed,
saying agents must be free to protect the president, vice
president, presidential candidates and other political figures
without unnecessary fear or threat of lawsuits.
"Secret Service agents on protective detail must make
split-second decisions that could have life-or-death - and
historic - consequences. It is vitally important, therefore,
that Secret Service agents act without hesitation," attorneys
for the agents said in their appeal to the Supreme Court.
David Lane, an attorney for Howards, said in a letter to
the Supreme Court that he does not oppose high court review
because appeals courts are divided and the "Constitution needs
to be vindicated nationally in this matter."
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case
in the spring, with a ruling due by the end of June. Justice
Elena Kagan did not take part in considering the case,
presumably because she had a role in reviewing the lawsuit in
her previous job as solicitor general.
The Supreme Court case is Reichle v. Howards, No.
11-262.
For Reichle: Sean Gallagher of Polsinelli Shughart.
For Howards: David lane of Killmer, Lane & Newman.
(Reporting by James Vicini)
Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal