Ryan Whaley Coldiron Shandy

On January 27, 2010, the Tenth Circuit issued a controversial opinion regarding the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment and the protection afforded to government officials under the doctrine of qualified immunity.  The claims made by the Plaintiffs in Weise v. Casper regarded events that unfolded at a Presidential speech in Denver, Colorado.  On March 21, 2005, then-President George W. Bush gave a speech at a public event at the Wings Over the Rockies Museum.  Plaintiffs Leslie Weise and Alex Young drove to the event in a vehicle owned by Weise which displayed a bumper sticker that read: “No More Blood for Oil.”  After being initially admitted to the event, Weise and Young were approached at their seats by a government employee, who escorted them from the event, forbidding them to reenter.  The Secret Service informed Weise and Young that they were being ejected because of the bumper sticker on Weise’s car.  Their ouster was in accordance with a White House policy of excluding those who disagree with the President from the President’s official public appearances.  Weise and Young filed suit against the government employees and volunteers who participated in their ejection, claiming a violation of their First Amendment freedoms.

Without deciding the issue of whether the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, the Tenth Circuit held that the Defendant’s actions were protected by the doctrine of “Qualified Immunity.”  “Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”  Weise v. Casper, 593 F.3d 1163, 1166 (10^th Cir. 2010); see link below.  The Court held that because Plaintiffs could not identify any First Amendment doctrine that prohibits the government from excluding persons from an official speech on private property on the basis of their viewpoint, the Defendant’s actions were protected under qualified immunity.  In other words, the constitutional right claimed by the Plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, according to the Court. 

To read the full opinion, please select the following link:

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-1085.pdf