Question Presented (AI Summary)
whether-it-obviously-violates-the-first-amendment-to-arrest-someone-for-asking-government-officials-questions-and-publishing-the-information-they-volunteer
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondents are police officers and prosecutors who sent Petitioner Priscilla Villarreal to jail for asking a police officer for facts and then reporting what the officer volunteered. Those officials plotted the local journalist’s arrest not for any legitimate purpose, but to silence a vocal critic. Inanine-to-seven en banc decision with four dissenting opinions, the Fifth Circuit held the officials have qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit concluded it was reasonable to arrest Villarreal for routine news reporting under a Texas felony statute no local official had enforced in its 23-year history. In dissent, Judge Ho explained that the majority “treat[s] the First Amendment as a secondclass right” and “contradicts” this Court’s holdings that “subject arrests to First Amendment scrutiny.” App. 77a, 80a. The Fifth Circuit’s decision also conflicts with multiple circuits that have held officials are not entitled to qualified immunity when they use state statutes in ways that criminalize undoubted First Amendment rights. The questions presented are: 1. Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer. 2. Whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, as decisions from the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held, or whether qualified immunity shields those officials, as the Fifth Circuit held below. u PARTIES TO THE PROCEEEDING Petitioner Priscilla Villarreal was the plaintiff in the district court and the appellant in the Fifth Circuit. Respondents Isidro R. Alaniz, Marisela Jacaman, Claudio Trevino Jr., Juan L. Ruiz, Deyanira Villarreal, and Does 1-2 were individual defendants in the district court and appellees in the Fifth Circuit. Defendant City of Laredo was a municipal entity defendant in the district court and appellee in the Fifth Circuit at the panel stage. Villarreal’s dismissed claim against the City was not part of the rehearing en banc. Defendants Enedina Martinez, Alfredo Guerrero, Laura Montemayor, and Webb County, Texas were defendants in the district court. Villarreal did not appeal the district court’s dismissal of her claims against those Defendants. The State of Texas was an intervening party in the Fifth Circuit.
2024-10-15
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Gonzalez</i> v. <i>Trevino</i>, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (<i>per curiam</i>).
2024-09-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
2024-09-13
Reply of petitioner Priscilla Villarreal filed.
2024-09-13
Reply of Priscilla Villarreal submitted.
2024-09-04
Brief of Texas in opposition submitted.
2024-09-04
Brief of Isidro R. Alaniz, et al. in opposition submitted.
2024-09-04
Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.
2024-09-04
Brief of respondents Isidro R. Alaniz, et al. in opposition filed.
2024-07-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 4, 2024, for all respondents.
2024-07-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 5, 2024 to September 4, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-07-23
Motion of Texas for an extension of time submitted.
2024-06-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 5, 2024, for all respondents.
2024-06-24
Motion of respondents Claudio Trevino, Jr., et al. to extend the time to file a response from July 5, 2024 to August 5, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-06-24
Motion of Claudio Trevino, Jr., Juan L. Ruiz, Deyanira Villarrel, Does1-2 for an extension of time submitted.
2024-06-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 5, 2024.
2024-06-18
Motion of respondent Texas to extend the time to file a response from July 5, 2024 to August 5, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-06-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 5, 2024 to August 5, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-06-05
Response Requested. (Due July 5, 2024)
2024-06-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024.
2024-05-24
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
2024-05-24
Brief amicus curiae of Center for American Liberty filed.
2024-05-24
Brief amici curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 21 News Organizations filed.
2024-05-24
Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
2024-05-24
Brief amicus curiae of Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability filed.
2024-05-24
Brief amici curiae of Young America's Foundation and Manhattan Institute filed.
2024-05-24
Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
2024-05-23
Brief amicus curiae of Law Enforcement Action Partnership filed.
2024-05-23
Brief amici curiae of Independent Journalists filed.
2024-05-22
Brief amicus curiae of Muckrock Foundation filed.
2024-05-22
Brief amici curiae of Reporters, et al. filed.
2024-05-09
Waiver of right of respondents Isidro R. Alaniz, Marisela Jacaman to respond filed.
2024-05-03
Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.
2024-05-03
Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed.
2024-05-02
Waiver of right of respondent Texas to respond filed.
2024-04-26
Waiver of right of respondents Claudio Trevino, Jr., Juan L. Ruiz, Deyanira Villarrel, Does1-2 to respond filed.
2024-04-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 24, 2024)