Search Articles
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from a Texas journalist challenging her arrest as retaliation for her coverage of law enforcement in Texas, leaving questions over how qualified immunity applies in free speech cases.
Priscilla Villarreal, a Texas-based online citizen journalist known as “Lagordiloca,” was arrested in 2017 after communicating with a source regarding the details of a border agent who died by suicide and an individual involved in a fatal car collision, which she then published on Facebook.
The officers obtained two warrants, one for each story, and ultimately charged Villarreal with “misuse of official information” under Texas Penal Code Section 39.06(c). In the 23 years since the statue was enacted, Villarreal said she is the only one who has been arrested under that particular law.
“It should be obvious that this arrest violated the First Amendment,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “Yet the Fifth Circuit held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity, and now Villarreal is left without a remedy. The court today makes a grave error by declining to hear this case.”
According to the officers’ warrant applications, they asserted Villarreal wanted to “benefit” from the nonpublic information by boosting her Facebook audience. However, Villarreal argued the officers deliberately misled a magistrate judge to approve the warrant because they knew she “sought no benefit” and “obtained no nonpublic information.”
When Villarreal turned herself in, she claimed officers “surrounded her, laughed at her, took pictures with their cellphones” and showed clear animus against her before she was released on bond. The citizen journalist filed a writ of habeas corpus, prompting a state judge to declare the statute unconstitutionally vague.
Villarreal then sued seeking First Amendment damages, but a federal judge dismissed her claims after determining that, even if her claims were true, the Webb County officials are entitled to qualified immunity. A Fifth Circuit panel initially reversed that ruling, finding Villarreal’s arrest “obviously” unconstitutional, but the full en banc panel vacated the decision and upheld the dismissal.
“This case implicates one of the most basic journalistic practices of them all: asking sources within the government for information,” Sotomayor wrote, noting that was the extent of Villarreal’s conduct, and her source voluntarily provided that information.
“What happened next flies in the face of the core guarantee of the First Amendment: By arresting Villarreal, rather than solely disciplining the employee for any wrongdoing, county officials took this ‘everyday journalism’ and transformed it ‘into a crime,’” Sotomayor added. “This was blatant First Amendment violation. No reasonable officer would have thought that he could have arrested Villarreal, consistent with the Constitution, for asking the questions she asked.”
Sotomayor slammed the full Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that Villarreal had to additionally prove the arresting officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The appellate court’s finding that the officers had probable cause was clearly erroneous because the arrest was based on First Amendment activity, something “all reasonable officers know.”
Villarreal also argued her arrest was the culmination of a monthslong retaliatory effort by officers and prosecutors because they did not like her reporting.
The high court’s decision leaves a split among the appellate circuits, with the Sixth, Eighth and 10th Circuits having denied officials qualified immunity in First Amendment cases.
The Supreme Court previously ordered the Fifth Circuit to review Villarreal’s case following its 2024 decision in *Gonzalez v. Trevino,*where the court granted a retired Texas city councilwoman a second chance to pursue her lawsuit arguing she was wrongly arrested.
Villarreal was represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which expressed its disappointment with the high court’s decision in a statement on X.
“The decision not to take Priscilla’s case only shines more light on the need for the court to revisit how qualified immunity applies in free speech cases, sooner rather than later,” the foundation said in a statement.
Follow @Ryan_KnappySubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.