Villarreal v. City of Laredo, 17f4th532

Background:

Priscilla Villarreal is a high‑profile citizen journalist in Laredo who live‑streams and posts news on Facebook and frequently criticizes local law enforcement.
She obtained and published names of victims in separate incidents after confirming identities with Laredo PD Officer Barbara Goodman.
Webb County prosecutors obtained arrest warrants charging Villarreal under Texas Penal Code § 39.06(c) (soliciting nonpublic information to obtain a benefit); she was arrested and detained; a Texas court later granted habeas relief and held § 39.06(c) unconstitutionally vague.
Villarreal sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers, prosecutors, Webb County, and the City of Laredo alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments (including selective enforcement and retaliation); the district court dismissed on qualified immunity and failure‑to‑state grounds and dismissed municipal claims under Monell.
The Fifth Circuit reversed dismissal of Villarreal’s First Amendment claim (right to ask officials questions), Fourth Amendment wrongful‑arrest claim, and selective‑enforcement (Fourteenth Amendment) claim; it affirmed dismissal of her municipal (City of Laredo) Monell claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment — right to ask officials questions / infringement	Villarreal: asking public officials questions is core speech/press activity protected by the First Amendment; arrest for that conduct violated clearly established law	Defendants: they were enforcing § 39.06(c); conduct was not clearly established as unconstitutional	Court: Reversed dismissal; obvious First Amendment violation; qualified immunity not available because statute was patently unconstitutional in application
First Amendment — retaliation claim	Villarreal: arrest and other actions were motivated by retaliation for her journalism and chilled speech	Defendants: her speech was not curtailed; she continued reporting	Court: Dismissal affirmed as to retaliation — under Fifth Circuit precedent plaintiff must allege actual curtailment of her speech and she did not
Fourth Amendment — wrongful arrest / probable cause & qualified immunity	Villarreal: arrest lacked probable cause because it punished protected speech; officers should have known affidavit failed to establish probable cause	Defendants: magistrate issued warrant; probable cause existed; qualified immunity shields them	Court: Reversed dismissal; warrant and alleged reliance on speech‑based crime made probable cause objectively unreasonable; qualified immunity denied
Fourteenth Amendment — selective enforcement	Villarreal: she was selectively singled out though other journalists routinely solicited nonpublic info and were not arrested	Defendants: insufficiently pleaded similarly situated comparators; maybe no prior comparable circumstances	Court: Reversed dismissal; complaint plausibly alleges similarly situated journalists were treated differently and that enforcement was discriminatory
Municipal (Monell) liability — City of Laredo	Villarreal: city maintained policy/custom of retaliating against her reporting	City: no final policymaker action, ordinance, or persistent widespread custom alleged	Court: Affirmed dismissal; plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an official policy or a custom fairly representing municipal policy

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for § 1983 claims)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) ("obvious" constitutional violations can defeat qualified immunity)
Sause v. Bauer, 138 S. Ct. 2561 (2018) (First Amendment right clearly established for prayer; qualified immunity denied)
Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52 (2020) (obvious Eighth Amendment violation warrants denial of qualified immunity)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (objective unreasonableness in seeking a warrant defeats qualified immunity)
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) (magistrate‑issued warrant does not end inquiry into officers’ objective reasonableness)
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) (news‑gathering receives First Amendment protection)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (press protection from government suppression of publication)
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or persistent custom)
In re Express‑News Corp., 695 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1982) (news‑gathering and access to information are First Amendment concerns)