First Amendment

Arresting a Reporter for Asking Questions Was a 'Blatant First Amendment Violation,' Sonia Sotomayor Says

The justice dissented from the Supreme Court's denial of a petition from a Texas journalist who was charged with felonies for practicing journalism.

Jacob Sullum | 3.24.2026 4:40 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Midjourney/Steve Petteway/SCOTUS)

The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a petition from Priscilla Villarreal, the independent Texas journalist who was arrested on felony charges in 2017 for asking a Laredo police officer to confirm information about a fatal car accident and a public suicide. The decision against hearing Villarreal v. Alaniz provoked a 15-page dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who explains why anyone who values freedom of the press should be alarmed by the way Laredo officials treated Villarreal.

Although "it should be obvious" that Villarreal's arrest "violated the First Amendment," Sotomayor writes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that the local officials responsible for it were shielded by qualified immunity, a doctrine that bars federal civil rights claims unless they allege violations of "clearly established" law. As a result, "Villarreal is left without a remedy," Sotomayor notes. "The Court today makes a grave error by declining to hear this case."

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which represented Villarreal, notes that Laredo cops "arrested Priscilla for asking police questions—something reporters do every day, and something the First Amendment squarely protects." The denial of her petition, FIRE says in a press release, "shines more light on the need for the Court to revisit how qualified immunity applies in free speech cases."

This was Villarreal's second trip to the Supreme Court. The first time around, the justices vacated an earlier 5th Circuit ruling against her and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, a 2024 decision that made it easier for victims of retaliatory arrests to substantiate their First Amendment claims. Despite that instruction, the 5th Circuit reached the same result last year.

Even if District Attorney Isidro Alaniz and Laredo police engineered Villarreal's arrest to punish her for constitutionally protected speech, Judge Edith Jones said in the majority opinion, "it is easily shown" that they would be protected by qualified immunity. That conclusion hinged on the fact that the arrest preceded the Supreme Court's 2019........

© Reason.com