Amicus Brief: Villareal v. Alaniz

Priscilla Villarreal is a popular independent journalist in Laredo, Texas who made a name for herself by providing quick, on-the-ground reporting about local crime and misconduct by police and prosecutors. In 2017, Villareal published stories about a public suicide and a fatal car accident, identifying the victims based on information she obtained from third parties. Before publishing, Villareal asked for confirmation of the victims’ identities from a Laredo Police Department officer, who freely provided that confirmation.

Seven months later, Laredo police arrested Villareal, alleging that she had violated a Texas statute that local authorities had never before enforced, Texas Penal Code Section 39.06(c). This felony statute states that “a person commits an offense, if, with the intent to obtain a benefit . . . , he solicits or receives from a public servant information that: (1) the public servant has access to by means of his office or employment; and (2) has not been made public.” The police justified the arrest because (1) the victims’ identities were not “public information” and (2) Priscilla benefited from publishing the stories by gaining additional Facebook followers.

During the booking process, LPD officers photographed Priscilla in handcuffs, laughed at her, and mocked her. After posting bond, Villareal filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which the local judge granted, finding the statute unconstitutionally vague. Villareal then sued, alleging that the arrest was retaliation for her candid reporting on local officials, including the assistant prosecutor who participated in her arrest. The federal district court dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds, which a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed. The en banc Fifth Circuit then ruled against Villareal in a heterodox 9-7 split (splitting both the Court’s conservatives and its liberals), so she petitioned for Supreme Court review, with a supporting brief by the Manhattan Institute and Young America’s Foundation.

After the Supreme Court granted that petition, vacated the Fifth Circuit ruling, and remanded in in light of its decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, the en banc Fifth Circuit again ruled against Villarreal, who filed another cert. petition. MI has again joined YAF on a brief supporting Villareal and arguing that, regardless of where anyone stands on the larger debate over qualified immunity, this doctrine was never intended to shield government officials who violate clear-cut First Amendment rights.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.

Photo: natasaadzic / iStock / Getty Images Plus