Texas Vlogger Asks Supreme Court To Rule That Arresting Journalists For Asking Questions Is 'Obviously Unconstitutional'

Priscilla Villarreal, a Laredo news vlogger who runs a popular Facebook news outlet, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether arresting journalists for asking government officials routine questions is "obviously unconstitutional." Her 2017 arrest — and the conflicting federal appeals rulings that followed — raise urgent questions about press freedom and qualified immunity for public officials.

Villarreal says local officials, frustrated by her blunt coverage and criticism, conspired to punish her by treating ordinary newsgathering as criminal conduct. After months of searching for "any excuse" to arrest her, authorities invoked an obscure Texas "Abuse of Office" statute that makes it a felony to "solicit" nonpublic information from a government official "with intent to obtain a benefit."

According to court filings, Laredo police had never before used the statute in this way. Prosecutors alleged Villarreal violated the law twice when she asked an officer to confirm details of a public suicide and a fatal car crash. They characterized the alleged "benefit" she sought as increased Facebook traffic — an interpretation that, if accepted broadly, could criminalize routine journalism because reporters commonly seek to attract audiences by publishing information provided by government sources.

After police obtained arrest warrants, Villarreal turned herself in. Her petition says officers photographed her in handcuffs while mocking and laughing. A judge later dismissed the felony charges, finding the underlying statute unconstitutionally vague.

Villarreal then sued Laredo officials under the First Amendment, alleging they acted "under color of law." A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially rejected the defendants' qualified-immunity defense, with the majority observing that "Priscilla Villarreal was put in jail for asking a police officer a question" and calling that an obvious constitutional violation.

"Priscilla Villarreal was put in jail for asking a police officer a question. If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it's hard to imagine what would be."

But on rehearing en banc, a sharply divided 16-judge Fifth Circuit panel concluded there was no "obvious violation" and blocked Villarreal's suit, producing multiple dissents. The case attracted alarm from journalists and civil-rights advocates, and a politically diverse coalition supported Villarreal's petition to the Supreme Court. Her attorneys at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) are representing her on the qualified-immunity and First Amendment issues.

In 2024 the Supreme Court granted review, vacated the Fifth Circuit's earlier ruling, and directed the court of appeals to reconsider in light of a June 2024 decision that made it easier for people to pursue First Amendment claims after retaliatory arrests. Despite that guidance, the Fifth Circuit in April again blocked Villarreal's suit, prompting dissents from several judges who said the majority had effectively returned to its prior, criticized position.

Why This Case Matters

The Supreme Court now faces two consequential questions: whether it is "obviously" unconstitutional to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing information those officials volunteer, and whether public officials can claim qualified immunity when they use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment.

Those questions have broad implications. As Justice Neil Gorsuch has warned, criminal statutes have proliferated so widely that "almost anyone can be arrested for something," and the Fifth Circuit's approach could leave press freedom dependent on how creatively local officials apply criminal laws. A ruling for Villarreal could protect ordinary newsgathering and make it easier to hold officials accountable when they misuse criminal statutes against reporters.

Case status: Villarreal has asked the Supreme Court to grant review and resolve both the First Amendment and qualified-immunity questions. The decision could set a national precedent on when journalists are protected from arrest for ordinary newsgathering and when officials may be held liable for retaliatory prosecutions.