The Supreme Court yesterday rejected<\/a> a petition from Priscilla Villarreal<\/a>, the independent Texas journalist who was arrested<\/a> 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<\/a> <\/i>provoked a 15-page dissent<\/a> from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who explains why anyone who values freedom of the press should be alarmed by the way Laredo officials treated Villarreal.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> that the local officials responsible for it\u00a0were 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.”<\/p>\n

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which represented Villarreal, notes that Laredo cops “arrested Priscilla for asking police questions\u2014something 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.”<\/p>\n