In a groundbreaking decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, voted 9-7 on Tuesday, denying a Texas citizen journalist the right to sue officials over her arrest. The court, deeply divided along ideological lines, asserted that police officers and county prosecutors were shielded by qualified immunity in their actions against Priscilla Villarreal. This ruling, seen by dissenting judges as a potential threat to free speech and news gathering, is poised to set a concerning precedent.
Priscilla Villarreal, an online citizen journalist from Laredo, Texas, renowned for her popular Facebook page reporting on local crime, events, and government activities, faced legal troubles when she published the identities of suicide and car crash victims. The charges, two felony counts of misuse of information, stemmed from her interactions with a police officer in Laredo. Villarreal, with over 120,000 followers, utilized this information to boost her online presence.
The Texas statute under which she was charged criminalizes the solicitation of non-public information from a government official with an intent to gain a benefit. Despite a Texas state court judge dismissing the charges in 2018 due to the law’s alleged unconstitutionality, Villarreal found herself entangled in a legal battle. The officers and prosecutors claimed qualified immunity, a decision overturned by a 2-1 panel in 2021.
However, the recent ruling, penned by U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, sided with law enforcement. Jones argued that officers were not obligated to anticipate the constitutionality of the Texas law before making an arrest. She criticized Villarreal for exploiting tragedies to enhance her journalistic reputation, emphasizing that reputable media outlets often withhold such sensitive information.
This decision, splitting the court’s conservatives and drawing dissent from judges appointed by Democrats, triggered concerns about an erosion of constitutional rights. U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, appointed by former President Donald Trump, criticized the majority for endorsing an “extreme vision” where officials could undermine federal constitutional rights at their discretion.
U.S. Circuit Judge James Graves, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, voiced worries about limiting journalists to publicly disclosed information, arguing that it hampers their ability to seek non-public details from the government.
In response, JT Morris, Villarreal’s lawyer from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, stated his client’s determination to seek Supreme Court review. The legal representatives of the defendants did not provide comments on the ruling.
As this decision reverberates, concerns mount about the implications it may have on the landscape of free expression and constitutional accountability for citizen journalists across the nation.
