certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 13鈥115.鈥傾rgued March 26, 2014鈥擠ecided May 27, 2014
While campaigning for a second term, President George W. Bush was scheduled to spend the night at a Jacksonville, Oregon, cottage. Local law enforcement officials permitted a group of Bush supporters and a group of protesters to assemble on opposite sides of a street along the President鈥檚 motorcade route. When the President made a last-minute decision to have dinner at the outdoor patio area of the Jacksonville Inn鈥檚 restaurant before resuming the drive to the cottage, the protesters moved to an area in front of the Inn, which placed them within weapons range of the President. The supporters remained in their original location, where a two-story building blocked sight of, and weapons access to, the patio. At the direction of two Secret Service agents responsible for the President鈥檚 security, petitioners here (the agents), local police cleared the area where the protesters had gathered, eventually moving them two blocks away to a street beyond weapons reach of the President. The agents did not require the guests already inside the Inn to leave, stay clear of the patio, or go through a security screening. After the President dined, his motorcade passed the supporters, but the protesters, now two blocks from the motorcade鈥檚 route, were beyond his sight and hearing.
The protesters sued the agents for damages, alleging that the agents engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment when they moved the protesters away from the Inn but allowed the supporters to remain in their original location. The District Court denied the agents鈥 motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds, but on interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held that the protesters had failed to state a First Amendment claim under the plead-ing standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. Because those decisions were rendered after the protesters commenced suit, the Court of Appeals granted leave to amend the complaint. On remand, the protesters supplemented the complaint with allegations that the agents acted pursuant to an unwritten Secret Service policy of working with the Bush White House to inhibit the expression of disfavored views at presidential appearances. The District Court denied the agents鈥 renewed motion to dismiss. This time, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that viewpoint-driven conduct on the agents鈥 part could be inferred from the absence of a legitimate security rationale for the different treatment accorded the two groups of demonstrators. The Court of Appeals further held that the agents were not entitled to qualified immunity because this Court鈥檚 precedent made clear that the Government may not regulate speech based on its content.
Held: The agents are entitled to qualified immunity. Pp. 11鈥18.
(a) Government officials may not exclude from public places persons engaged in peaceful expressive activity solely because the government actor fears, dislikes, or disagrees with the views expressed. See, e.g., Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, , 96. The fundamental right to speak, however, does not leave people at liberty to publicize their views 鈥 鈥榳henever and however and wherever they please.鈥 鈥 United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177. In deciding whether the protesters have alleged violation of a clearly established First Amendment right, this Court assumes without deciding that Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, which involved alleged Fourth Amendment violations, extends to First Amendment claims, see, e.g., Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 675.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages 鈥渦nless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 鈥榗learly established鈥 at the time of the challenged conduct.鈥 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. ___, ___. The 鈥渄ispositive inquiry . . . is whether it would [have been] clear to a reasonable officer鈥 in the agents鈥 position 鈥渢hat [their] conduct was unlawful in the situation [they] confronted.鈥 Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202. At the time of the Jacksonville incident, this Court had addressed a constitutional challenge to Secret Service actions only once. In Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, the plaintiff challenged the lawfulness of his arrest by two Secret Service agents for writing and delivering a letter about a plot to assassinate President Reagan. Holding that the agents were shielded by qualified immunity, the Court stated that 鈥渁ccommodation for reasonable error . . . is nowhere more important than when the specter of Presidential assassination is raised.鈥 Id., at 229. This Court has recognized the overwhelming importance of safeguarding the President in other contexts as well. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707. Mindful that officers may be faced with unanticipated security situations, the key question addressed is whether it should have been clear to the agents that the security perimeter they established violated the First Amendment. Pp. 11鈥13.
(b) The protesters assert, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that the agents violated clearly established federal law by denying them 鈥渆qual access to the President.鈥 No decision of which the Court is aware, however, would alert Secret Service agents engaged in crowd control that they bear a First Amendment obligation to make sure that groups with conflicting views are at all times in equivalent positions. Nor would the maintenance of equal access make sense in the situation the agents here confronted, where only the protesters, not the supporters, had a direct line of sight to the patio where the President was dining. The protesters suggest that the agents could have moved the supporters out of the motorcade鈥檚 range as well, but there would have been no security rationale for such a move. Pp. 13鈥15.
(c) The protesters allege that, in directing their displacement, the agents acted not to ensure the President鈥檚 safety, but to insulate the President from their message. These allegations are undermined by a map of the area, which shows that, because of the protesters鈥 location, they posed a potential security risk to the President, while the supporters, because of their location, did not. The protesters鈥 counterarguments are unavailing. They urge that, had the agents鈥 professed interest in the President鈥檚 safety been sincere, the agents would have screened or removed from the premises persons already at the Inn when the President arrived. But staff, other diners, and Inn guests were on the premises before the agents knew of the President鈥檚 plans, and thus could not have anticipated seeing the President, no less causing harm to him. The agents also could keep a close watch on the relatively small number of people already inside the Inn, surveillance that would have been impossible for the hundreds of people outside the Inn. A White House manual directs the President鈥檚 advance team to 鈥渨ork with the Secret Service . . . to designate a protest area . . . preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.鈥 The manual guides the conduct of the political advance team, not the Secret Service, whose own written guides explicitly prohibit 鈥渁gents from discriminating between anti-government and pro-government demonstrators.鈥 Even assuming, as the protesters maintain, that other agents, at other times and places, have assisted in shielding the President from political speech, this case is scarcely one in which the agents lacked a valid security reason for their ac-tions. Moreover, because individual government officials 鈥渃annot be held liable鈥 in a Bivens suit 鈥渦nless they themselves acted [unconstitutionally],鈥 Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 683, this Court declines to infer from alleged instances of misconduct on the part of particular agents an unwritten Secret Service policy to suppress disfavored expression, and then attribute that supposed policy to all field-level operatives. Pp. 15鈥18.
711 F.3d 941, reversed.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
NOTICE:鈥俆his opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports.鈥僐eaders are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 13鈥115
_________________
TIM WOOD and ROB SAVAGE, PETITIONERS v. MICHAEL MOSS et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[May 27, 2014]
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns a charge that two Secret Service agents, in carrying out their responsibility to protect the President, engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint-based discrimination. The episode in suit occurred in Jacksonville, Oregon, on the evening of October 14, 2004. President George W. Bush, campaigning in the area for a second term, was scheduled to spend the evening at a cottage in Jacksonville. With permission from local law enforcement officials, two groups assembled on opposite sides of the street on which the President鈥檚 motorcade was to travel to reach the cottage. One group supported the President, the other opposed him.
The President made a last-minute decision to stop in town for dinner before completing the drive to the cottage. His motorcade therefore turned from the planned route and proceeded to the outdoor patio dining area of the Jacksonville Inn鈥檚 restaurant. Learning of the route change, the protesters moved down the sidewalk to the area in front of the Inn. The President鈥檚 supporters remained across the street and about a half block away from the Inn. At the direction of the Secret Service agents, state and local police cleared the block on which the Inn was located and moved the protesters some two blocks away to a street beyond handgun or explosive reach of the President. The move placed the protesters a block farther away from the Inn than the supporters.
Officials are sheltered from suit, under a doctrine known as qualified immunity, when their conduct 鈥渄oes not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights鈥 a reasonable official, similarly situated, would have comprehended. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982) . The First Amendment, our precedent makes plain, disfavors viewpoint-based discrimination. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828 (1995) . But safeguarding the President is also of overwhelming importance in our constitutional system. See Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 707 (1969) (per curiam). Faced with the President鈥檚 sudden decision to stop for dinner, the Secret Service agents had to cope with a security situation not earlier anticipated. No decision of this Court so much as hinted that their on-the-spot action was unlawful because they failed to keep the protesters and supporters, throughout the episode, equidistant from the President.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled otherwise. It found dispositive of the agents鈥 motion to dismiss 鈥渢he considerable disparity in the distance each group was allowed to stand from the Presiden[t].鈥 Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 711 F. 3d 941, 946 (2013). Because no 鈥渃learly established law鈥 so controlled the agents鈥 response to the motorcade鈥檚 detour, we reverse the Ninth Circuit鈥檚 judgment.
I
A
On October 14, 2004, after a nearby campaign appear-ance, President George W. Bush was scheduled to spend the night at a cottage in Jacksonville, Oregon. Anticipating the visit, a group of individuals, including respondents (the protesters), organized a demonstration to express their opposition to the President and his policies. At around 6:00 p.m. on the evening the President鈥檚 motorcade was expected to pass through the town, between 200 and 300 protesters gathered in Jacksonville, on California Street between Third and Fourth Streets. See infra, at 4 (map depicting the relevant area in Jacksonville). The gathering had been precleared with local law enforcement authorities. On the opposite side of Third Street, a similarly sized group of individuals (the supporters) assembled to show their support for the President. If, as planned, the motorcade had traveled down Third Street to reach the cottage, with no stops along the way, the protesters and supporters would have had equal access to the President throughout in delivering their respective messages.
This situation was unsettled when President Bush made a spur-of-the-moment decision to stop for dinner at the Jacksonville Inn before proceeding to the cottage. The Inn stands on the north side of California Street, on the block where the protesters had assembled. Learning of the President鈥檚 change in plans, the protesters moved along the block to face the Inn. The respective positions of the protesters and supporters at the time the President arrived at the Inn are shown on the following map, which the protesters attached as an exhibit to their complaint:[1]
As the map indicates, the protesters massed on the sidewalk directly in front of the Inn, while the supporters remained assembled on the block west of Third Street, some distance from the Inn. The map also shows an alley running along the east side of the Inn (the California Street alley) leading to an outdoor patio used by the Inn鈥檚 restaurant as a dining area. A six-foot high wooden fence surrounded the patio. At the location where the President鈥檚 supporters gathered, a large two-story building, the U. S. Hotel, extended north around the corner of California and Third Streets. That structure blocked sight of, and weapons access to, the patio from points on California Street west of the Inn.
Petitioners are two Secret Service agents (the agents) responsible for the President鈥檚 security during the Jacksonville visit. Shortly after 7:00 p.m. on the evening in question, the agents enlisted the aid of local police officers to secure the area for the President鈥檚 unexpected stop at the Inn. Following the agents鈥 instructions, the local officers first cleared the alley running from Third Street to the patio (the Third Street alley), which the President鈥檚 motorcade would use to access the Inn. The officers then cleared Third Street north of California Street, as well as the California Street alley.
At around 7:15 p.m., the President arrived at the Inn. As the motorcade entered the Third Street alley, both sets of demonstrators were equally within the President鈥檚 sight and hearing. When the President reached the outdoor patio dining area, the protesters stood on the sidewalk directly in front of the California Street alley, exhibiting signs and chanting slogans critical of the President and his policies. In view of the short distance between California Street and the patio, the protesters no longer contest that they were then within weapons range of the President. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 3鈥4, 35, 39鈥40; Brief for Petitioners 44.
Approximately 15 minutes later, the agents directed the officers to clear the protesters from the block in front of the Inn and move them to the east side of Fourth Street. From their new location, the protesters were roughly the same distance from the President as the supporters. But unlike the supporters, whose sight and access were obstructed by the U. S. Hotel, only a parking lot separated the protesters from the patio. The protesters thus remained within weapons range of, and had a direct line of sight to, the President鈥檚 location. This sight line is illustrated by the broken arrow marked on the map below.[2]
After another 15 minutes passed, the agents directed the officers again to move the protesters, this time one block farther away from the Inn, to the east side of Fifth Street. The relocation was necessary, the agents told the local officers, to ensure that no demonstrator would be 鈥渨ithin handgun or explosive range of the President.鈥 App. to Pet. for Cert. 177a. The agents, however, did not require the guests already inside the Inn to leave, stay clear of the patio, or go through any security screening. The supporters at all times retained their original location on the west side of Third Street.
After the President dined, the motorcade left the Inn by traveling south on Third Street toward the cottage. On its way, the motorcade passed the President鈥檚 supporters. The protesters remained on Fifth Street, two blocks away from the motorcade鈥檚 route, thus beyond the President鈥檚 sight and hearing.
B
The protesters sued the agents for damages in the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The agents鈥 actions, the complaint asserted, violated the protesters鈥 First Amendment rights by the manner in which the agents established a security perimeter around the President during his unscheduled stop for dinner. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971) (recognizing claim for damages against federal agents for violations of plaintiff鈥檚 Fourth Amendment rights).[3] Specifically, the protesters alleged that the agents engaged in viewpoint discrimination when they moved the protesters away from the Inn, while allowing the supporters to remain in their original location.
The agents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the protesters鈥 allegations were insufficient to state a claim for violation of the First Amendment. The agents further maintained that they were sheltered by qualified immunity because the constitutional right alleged by the protesters was not clearly established.
The District Court denied the motion, see Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 2007 WL 2915608, *1, 20 (D Ore., Oct. 7, 2007), but on interlocutory appeal,[4] the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. See Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F. 3d 962 (2009). The facts alleged in the complaint, the Court of Appeals held, were insufficient to state a First Amendment claim under the pleading standards prescribed in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007) , and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662 (2009) . 572 F. 3d, at 974鈥975.[5] Because Twombly and Iqbal were decided after the protesters filed their complaint, however, the Ninth Circuit instructed the District Court to grant the protesters leave to amend. 572 F. 3d, at 972.
On remand, the protesters supplemented their complaint with allegations that the agents acted pursuant to an 鈥渁ctual but unwritten鈥 Secret Service policy of 鈥渨ork[ing] with the White House under President Bush to eliminate dissent and protest from presidential appearances.鈥 App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a. Relying on published media reports, the protesters鈥 amended complaint cited several instances in which other Secret Service agents allegedly engaged in conduct designed to suppress expression critical of President Bush at his public appearances. The amended complaint also included an excerpt from a White House manual instructing the President鈥檚 advance team to 鈥渨ork with the Secret Service and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed; preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.鈥 Id., at 219a. See also id., at 183a.
The agents renewed their motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The District Court denied the motion, holding that the complaint adequately alleged a violation of the First Amendment, and that the constitutional right asserted was clearly established. Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1216鈥1228 (Ore. 2010). The agents again sought an interlocutory appeal.
This time, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 711 F. 3d 941, satisfied that the amended pleading plausibly alleged that the agents 鈥渟ought to suppress [the protesters鈥橾 political speech鈥 based on the viewpoint they expressed, id., at 958. Viewpoint-driven conduct, the Court of Appeals maintained, could be inferred from the absence of a legitimate security rationale for 鈥渢he differential treatment鈥 accorded the two groups of demonstrators. See id., at 946. The Court of Appeals further held that the agents were not entitled to qualified immunity because this Court鈥檚 precedent 鈥渕ake[s] clear . . . 鈥榯hat the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.鈥 鈥 Id., at 963 (quoting Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 828).
The agents petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc, urging that the panel erred in finding the alleged constitutional violation clearly established. Over the dissent of eight judges, the Ninth Circuit denied the en banc petition. See 711 F. 3d, at 947 (O鈥橲cannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). We granted certiorari. 571 U. S. ___ (2013).
II
A
It is uncontested and uncontestable that government officials may not exclude from public places persons engaged in peaceful expressive activity solely because the government actor fears, dislikes, or disagrees with the views those persons express. See, e.g., Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 96 (1972) . It is equally plain that the fundamental right to speak secured by the First Amendment does not leave people at liberty to pub-licize their views 鈥 鈥榳henever and however and wher-ever they please.鈥 鈥 United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171 鈥178 (1983) (quoting Adderly v. Florida, 385 U. S.39, 48 (1966)). Our decision in this case starts from those premises.
The particular question before us is whether the protesters have alleged violation of a clearly established First Amendment right based on the agents鈥 decision to order the protesters moved from their original location in front of the Inn, first to the block just east of the Inn, and then another block farther. We note, initially, an antecedent issue: Does the First Amendment give rise to an implied right of action for damages against federal officers who violate that Amendment鈥檚 guarantees? In Bivens, cited supra, at 8, we recognized an implied right of action against federal officers for violations of the Fourth Amendment. Thereafter, we have several times assumed without deciding that Bivens extends to First Amendment claims. See, e.g., Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 675. We do so again in this case. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10鈥11 (counsel for petitioners observed that the implication of a right to sue derived from the First Amendment itself was an issue 鈥渘ot preserved below鈥 and therefore 鈥渘ot presented鈥 in this Court).
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages 鈥渦nless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 鈥榗learly established鈥 at the time of the challenged conduct.鈥 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 3). And under the governing pleading standard, the 鈥渃omplaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.鈥 Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). Requiring the alleged violation of law to be 鈥渃learly established鈥 鈥渂alances . . . the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.鈥 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 231 (2009) . The 鈥渄ispositive inquiry,鈥 we have said, 鈥渋s whether it would [have been] clear to a reasonable officer鈥 in the agents鈥 position 鈥渢hat [their] conduct was unlawful in the situation [they] confronted.鈥 Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 202 (2001) .
At the time of the Jacksonville incident, this Court had addressed a constitutional challenge to Secret Service actions on only one occasion.[6] In Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U. S. 224 (1991) (per curiam), the plaintiff sued two Secret Service agents alleging that they arrested him without probable cause for writing and delivering to two Univer-sity of Southern California offices a letter referring to a plot to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. We held that qualified immunity shielded the agents from claims that the arrest violated the plaintiff鈥檚 rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 鈥淸N]owhere,鈥 we stated, is 鈥渁ccommodation for reasonable error . . . more important than when the specter of Presidential assassination is raised.鈥 Id., at 229.
In other contexts, we have similarly recognized the Nation鈥檚 鈥渧alid, even . . . overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive.鈥 Watts, 394 U. S., at 707. See also Rubin v. United States, 525 U. S. 990 鈥991 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certio-rari) (鈥淭he physical security of the President of the United States has a special legal role to play in our constitutional system.鈥). Mindful that 鈥淸o]fficers assigned to protect public officials must make singularly swift, on the spot, decisions whether the safety of the person they are guarding is in jeopardy,鈥 Reichle v. Howards, 566 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 2), we address the key question: Should it have been clear to the agents that the security perimeter they established violated the First Amendment?
B
The protesters assert that it violated clearly established First Amendment law to deny them 鈥渆qual access to the President,鈥 App. Pet. for Cert. 175a, during his dinner at the Inn and subsequent drive to the cottage, id., at 185a.[7] The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the agents violated clearly established law by moving the protesters to a location that 鈥渨as in relevant ways not comparable to the place where the pro-Bush group was allowed to remain.鈥 711 F. 3d, at 946 (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). The Ninth Circuit did not deny that security concerns justified 鈥渕ov[ing] the anti-Bush pro-testers somewhere.鈥 Ibid. But, the court determined, no reason was shown for 鈥渢he considerable disparity in the distance each group was allowed to stand from the Presidential party.鈥 Ibid. The agents thus offended the First Amendment, in the Court of Appeals鈥 view, because their directions to the local officers placed the protesters at a 鈥渃omparativ[e] disadvantag[e] in expressing their views鈥 to the President. Ibid.
No decision of which we are aware, however, would alert Secret Service agents engaged in crowd control that they bear a First Amendment obligation 鈥渢o ensure that groups with different viewpoints are at comparable locations at all times.鈥 Id., at 952 (O鈥橲cannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Nor would the maintenance of equal access make sense in the situation the agents confronted.
Recall that at the protesters鈥 location on the north side of California Street, see supra, at 4, they faced an alley giving them a direct line of sight to the outdoor patio where the President stopped to dine. The first move, to the corner of Fourth and California Streets, proved no solution, for there, only a parking lot stood between the protesters and the patio. True, at both locations, a six-foot wooden fence and an unspecified number of local police officers impeded access to the President. Even so, 200 to 300 protesters were within weapons range, and had a largely unobstructed view, of the President鈥檚 location. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 41 (counsel for respondents acknowledged that 鈥渋n hindsight, you could . . . conclude鈥 that 鈥減roximity [of the protesters to the President] alone . . . is enough to create a security [risk]鈥). See also Eggen & Fletcher, FBI: Grenade Was a Threat to Bush, Washington Post, May 19, 2005, p. A1 (reporting that a live grenade thrown at President Bush in 2005, had it detonated, could have injured him from 100 feet away).
The protesters suggest that the agents could have moved the President鈥檚 supporters further to the west so that they would not be in range of the President when the motorcade drove from the Inn to the cottage where the President would stay overnight. See App. Pet. for Cert. 178a. As earlier explained, however, see supra, at 4鈥5, there would have been no security rationale for such a move. In contrast to the open alley and parking lot on the east side of the Inn, to the west of the Inn where the supporters stood, a large, two-story building blocked sight of, or weapons access to, the patio the agents endeavored to secure.[8] No clearly established law, we agree, required the Secret Service 鈥渢o interfere with even more speech than security concerns would require in an attempt to keep opposing groups at roughly equal distances from the President.鈥 Brief for Petitioners 32. And surely no such law required the agents to attempt to maintain equal dis-tances by 鈥減revail[ing] upon the President not to dine at the Inn.鈥 Oral Arg. Audio in No. 10鈥36152 (CA9) 42:22 to 43:36 (argument by protesters鈥 counsel), available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000008129.(as visited May 19, 2014, and in Clerk of Court鈥檚 case file) (argument tendered by protesters鈥 counsel).
III
The protesters allege that, when the agents directed their displacement, the agents acted not to ensure the President鈥檚 safety from handguns or explosive devices. Instead, the protesters urge, the agents had them moved solely to insulate the President from their message, thereby giving the President鈥檚 supporters greater visibility and audibility. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35鈥36. The Ninth Circuit found sufficient the protesters鈥 allegations that the agents 鈥渁cted with the sole intent to discriminate against [the protesters] because of their viewpoint鈥. 711 F. 3d, at 964. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals 鈥渁llow[ed] the protestors鈥 claim of viewpoint discrimination to proceed.鈥 Id., at 962.
It may be, the agents acknowledged, that clearly established law proscribed the Secret Service from disadvantaging one group of speakers in comparison to another if the agents had 鈥渘o objectively reasonable security rationale鈥 for their conduct, but acted solely to inhibit the expression of disfavored views. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28鈥29; Brief for Petitioners 52 (entitlement to relief might have been established if, for example, 鈥渢he pro-Bush group had . . . been allowed to move into the nearer location that the anti-Bush had vacated鈥). We agree with the agents, however, that the map itself, reproduced supra, at 4, undermines the protesters鈥 allegations of viewpoint discrimination as the sole reason for the agents鈥 directions. The map corroborates that, because of their location, the protesters posed a potential security risk to the President, while the supporters, because of their location, did not.
The protesters make three arguments to shore up their charge that the agents鈥 asserted security concerns are disingenuous. First, the protesters urge that, had the agents鈥 professed interest in the President鈥檚 safety been sincere, the agents would have directed all persons pres-ent at the Inn to be screened or removed from the prem-ises. See Brief for Respondents 27. But staff, other diners, and Inn guests were there even before the agents themselves knew that the President would dine at the Inn. See Brief for Petitioners 47. Those already at the Inn 鈥渃ould not have had any expectation that they would see the President that evening or any opportunity to premeditate a plan to cause him harm.鈥 Reply Brief 16. The Secret Service, moreover, could take measures to ensure that the relatively small number of people already inside the Inn were kept under close watch; no similar surveillance would have been possible for 200 to 300 people congregating in front of the Inn. See ibid.
The protesters also point to a White House manual, which states that the President鈥檚 advance team should 鈥渨ork with the Secret Service . . . to designate a protest area . . . preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.鈥 App. to Pet. for Cert. 219a. This manual guides the conduct of the President鈥檚 political advance team. See id., at 220a (distinguishing between the political role of the advance team and the security mission of the Secret Service).[9] As the complaint acknowledges, the Secret Service has its own 鈥渨ritten guidelines, directives, instructions and rules.鈥 Id., at 184a. Those guides explicitly 鈥減rohibit Secret Service agents from discriminating between anti-government and pro-government demonstrators.鈥 Ibid.
The protesters maintain that the Secret Service does not adhere to its own written guides. They recite several instances in which Secret Service agents allegedly engaged in viewpoint discrimination. See id., at 189a鈥194a. Even accepting as true the submission that Secret Service agents, at times, have assisted in shielding the President from political speech, this case is scarcely one in which the agents acted 鈥渨ithout a valid security reason.鈥 Brief for Respondents 40. We emphasize, again, that the protesters were at least as close to the President as were the supporters when the motorcade arrived at the Jacksonville Inn. See supra, at 5. And as the map attached to the complaint shows, see supra, at 4, when the President reached the patio to dine, the protesters, but not the supporters, were within weapons range of his location. See supra, at 14. Given that situation, the protesters cannot plausibly urge that the agents 鈥渉ad no valid security reason to request or order the[ir] eviction.鈥 App. to Pet. for Cert. 186a.
We note, moreover, that individual government officials 鈥渃annot be held liable鈥 in a Bivens suit 鈥渦nless they themselves acted [unconstitutionally].鈥 Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 683. We therefore decline to infer from alleged instances of misconduct on the part of particular agents an unwritten policy of the Secret Service to suppress disfavored expression, and then to attribute that supposed policy to all field-level operatives. See Reply Brief 20.
*鈥冣赌*鈥冣赌*
This case comes to us on the agents鈥 petition to review the Ninth Circuit鈥檚 denial of their qualified immunity defense. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10 (petitioners鈥 briefing on appeal trained on the issue of qualified immunity). Limiting our decision to that question, we hold, for the reasons stated, that the agents are entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Notes
[1] App. to Brief for Petitioners (Diagram A).
[2] This map appears as an appendix to the agents鈥 opening brief. See App. to Brief for Petitioners (Diagram B). Except for the arrow, Diagram B is identical to the map included in the protesters鈥 complaint.
[3] The protesters鈥 complaint also asserted claims against local police officers for using excessive force in violation of the . Those claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim, see v. ., 711 F. 3d 941, 954 (CA9 2013), and are not at issue here.
[4] We have repeatedly 鈥渟tressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage [of the] litigation,鈥 v., ().
[5] In ruling on a motion to dismiss, we have instructed, courts 鈥渕ust take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true,鈥 but 鈥渁re not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.鈥 v. (internal quotation marks omitted).
[6] Subsequent to the incident at issue here, we held in v. , 566 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 1), that two Secret Service agents were 鈥渋mmune from suit for allegedly arresting a suspect in retaliation for [negative comments he made about Vice President Cheney], when the agents had probable cause to arrest the suspect for committing a federal crime.鈥
[7] The protesters, however, do not maintain that 鈥渢he entitled them to be returned to their original location after the President鈥檚 dinner and before his motorcade departed.鈥 Brief for Respondents 39鈥40, n. 7. They urge only that 鈥渋t was constitutionally improper to move them in the first place.鈥 , at 40, n. 7; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 50 (same).
[8] Neither side contends that the presence of demonstrators along the President鈥檚 motorcade route posed an unmanageable security risk, or that there would have been a legitimate security rationale for removing the protesters, but not the supporters, from the motorcade route. The President鈥檚 detour for dinner, however, set the two groups apart. 鈥淸T]he security concerns arising from the presence of a large group of people near the open-air patio where the President was dining were plainly different from those associated with permitting a group . . . to remain along Third Street while the President鈥檚 [armored limousine] traveled by.鈥 Brief for Petitioners 46.
[9] 鈥淎n 鈥榓dvance man鈥 is 鈥榌o]ne who arranges for publicity, protocol, transportation, speaking schedules, conferences with local government officials, and minute details of a visit, smoothing the way for a political figure.鈥 鈥 See 711 F. 3d, at 950, n. 2 (O鈥橲cannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (quoting W. Safire, Safire鈥檚 Political Dictionary 8 (5th ed. 2008)).