Supreme Court Declines To Review Press Freedom Case

[ruet]

Source: NPR

The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a case testing a Texas law allowing law enforcement to arrest reporters who obtain information from government employees.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision not to hear the case.

"This case implicates one of the most basic journalistic practices of them all: asking sources within the government for information. Each day, countless journalists follow this
practice, seeking comment, confirmation, or even 'scoops' from governmental sources," she wrote. "Reasonably so."

In 2017, Laredo, Texas, journalist Priscilla Villarreal, also known as "LaGordiLoca." was arrested for publishing news stories about a border agent's public suicide and a car crash. She was arrested because she fact-checked her stories with information voluntarily provided by a police officer.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/23/nx-s1-5757440/supreme-court-press-freedom

[2naSalit]

1. Would be different...

If she was a blond bimbo from fux.

[al bupp]

3. You best believe it /nt

[CincyDem]

2. feels like they need another case to come up through another district with a different appellate decision.

At that point, I don't think SCOTUS will be able to avoid the issue and, if they're going to agree with TX, they'll have to own it with an opinion vs. a shadow docket dodge like this.

[GiqueCee]

4. As long as...

... Abbott, Patrick, and Paxton remain atop the manure pile that currently governs the Lone Star State, their claim to the dubious distinction of Anus of the Universe remains secure.

[reACTIONary]

5. This appears to be a bit of a muddle....

.... according to Sotomayor's dessert, the actual law was ruled unconditional...

This rule creates a perverse scheme in which officials can arrest someone for protected activity, decline to appeal a trial court's decision declaring the statute unconstitutional (as the county did here), and use qualified immunity to avoid liability by citing back to that statute."

What was dismissed was a lawsuits against those who used the law to arrest her, based on "qualified immunity." In other words, the officials should not be sued for enforcing a unconstitutional law that had not yet been declared unconstitutional.

Now, maybe they should have known the law would be or should be declared unconstitutional, and maybe they did. But I'm not sure they should be sued because they didn't behave as if it was.

In any case it appears as if the law itself is now null and void.