The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to revive a civil lawsuit brought by Texas-based citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal, a case that has drawn attention from national media organizations and free-speech advocates. The justices rejected Villarreal’s appeal and left in place a split decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked her from suing police officers and other officials for damages tied to her arrest.
The case centers on Villarreal’s allegation that her arrest violated First Amendment protections after she sought and obtained nonpublic information from police. According to the court record described in the appeal, Villarreal published the information on Facebook after she obtained identities connected to a person’s suicide and a family involved in a car accident.
In the Supreme Court action, the justices did not overturn the 5th Circuit’s conclusion that the officials Villarreal sued—named in complaints tied to Laredo and Webb County—were shielded by legal immunity. The 5th Circuit had ruled 9-7 that the defendants were entitled to that protection, after a state judge previously dismissed the related criminal case.
Villarreal’s legal fight began after a judge tossed the criminal charges brought against her. The judge said the law used to arrest her in 2017 was unconstitutional, and Villarreal then pursued a separate lawsuit seeking damages from the officials involved.
In her Supreme Court appeal, Villarreal’s lawyers argued that the 5th Circuit had misapplied the Supreme Court’s own guidance. The Supreme Court had previously directed the appeals court to reconsider Villarreal’s case in light of a separate decision involving Texas, and the later review was meant to account for that ruling.
The Supreme Court had issued that instruction after, in another case, a former Texas local elected official, Sylvia Gonzalez, had been given another chance to pursue a similar claim. Gonzalez, a former city council member in the San Antonio suburb of Castle Hills, said she was arrested in retaliation as part of a dispute with a political rival; after renewed proceedings, the 5th Circuit essentially stood by its earlier result, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene again “without explanation,” according to Villarreal’s lawyers.
The appeal materials also describe how the legal dispute fit within a broader argument about how far officials can go to criminalize or civilly insulate themselves from actions taken in the course of reporting. In the Supreme Court petition, Villarreal’s lawyers wrote that the 5th Circuit had “doubled down on granting officials free rein to turn routine news reporting into a felony.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision Monday. In her written dissent, she said, “It should be obvious that this arrest violated the First Amendment.”
The dispute has hinged on whether Villarreal, who sought information from police and published it online, can pursue damages claims against individual officials given the immunity rulings at the federal appellate level. With the Supreme Court now leaving the 5th Circuit decision in place, the avenue for Villarreal’s lawsuit is closed at least for this case posture.