Justices side with Secret Service in discrimination case

WASHINGTON — Secret Service agents are back in the news for drinking and carousing, but when it comes to keeping demonstrators away from the president, the Supreme Court seems to believe they can do no wrong.

Justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum voiced support Wednesday for alleged discriminatory actions taken by Secret Service agents guarding President George W. Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Anti-Bush protesters have spent the better part of a decade pursuing a legal challenge against two agents who ordered them moved farther away than Bush's supporters during an Oregon trip. They claim they were moved simply because their chants were annoying the president during dinner.

But even if that was the case, most of the justices said, the potential that security concerns played a role gives the agents the benefit of the doubt and makes a free-speech challenge almost impossible to succeed.

"The viewpoint itself constitutes a security consideration," Chief Justice John Roberts said. To make his point, he asked Steven Wilker, the lawyer representing the demonstrators, whether he would choose to move the president through a supportive or opposing crowd.

When Wilker hesitated, Roberts interrupted: "It's too late. You've taken too long to decide."

The case dates back three presidential elections, to the final weeks of Bush's re-election campaign. At the end of the day, Bush made an impromptu decision to dine on his hotel's outdoor patio, giving protesters a prime location to shout objections to his policies.

Fifteen minutes into dinner, the Secret Service ordered police to move the demonstrators several blocks farther away. A crowd supporting the president was allowed to stay at their location.

Lower courts sided with the protesters, ruling that the actions were a form of unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination." Wilker cited a dozen other incidents in which Secret Service agents are alleged to have done the same thing during Bush's first term.

Never mind, the majority of justices said — security concerns are paramount.

"Whenever the president is out in public, there is some degree of risk," said Justice Samuel Alito.

"It doesn't matter what the officer's motive was," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

"There are people out there who want to kill the president," Roberts added.

The court's liberal justices weren't as adamant, but they also appeared dubious about making Secret Service agents hesitant to act for fear of legal action.

"Everyone understands the importance of guarding the president in this country," Justice Stephen Breyer said. "Everyone understands the danger. You can't run a risk.

"At the same time, no one wants a Praetorian Guard that is above the law," he said, referring to the bodyguards used during the Roman Empire.