Two ongoing cases in Texas are placing the rights of citizen journalists under the microscope, highlighting critical First Amendment concerns. These cases involve Justin Pulliam and Priscilla Villarreal, both independent reporters who use social media to criticize and hold law enforcement accountable. Their confrontations with local police not only bring attention to the legal boundaries of press freedom but also raise questions about whether nontraditional journalists are entitled to the same protections as legacy media.
A Brief Reminder
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
– First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
“Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press.”
– Article I, Section 8, Texas Constitution
Journalist: “a person engaged in journalism; a writer or editor for a news medium; a writer who aims at a mass audience”
– Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Definition of journalist
Journalism: “the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media”
– Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Definition of journalism
The Case of Justin Pulliam
In July 2021, Justin Pulliam, a citizen journalist known for his YouTube channel Corruption Report, was excluded from a press conference in Fort Bend County, Texas, on orders from Sheriff Eric Fagan. The sheriff deemed Pulliam not to be “media,” instructing deputies to keep him away from the event under threat of arrest. This exclusion sparked a legal battle that has become a significant test of First Amendment protections for independent journalists.
Pulliam’s exclusion from the press event violated his constitutional rights, as U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison ruled in September 2024. Judge Edison emphasized that Pulliam, as a citizen journalist, is entitled to the same free speech protections as traditional reporters, affirming that Fagan should not have denied him access to the press conference. The court denied Fagan’s request for qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government officials from lawsuits unless they violate clearly established rights. The judge underscored that the rights of citizen journalists are just as robust as those of mainstream media outlets.
This ruling marked a major legal victory for Pulliam, reaffirming that independent journalists cannot be arbitrarily excluded from public events simply because they do not work for a legacy media outlet. As Judge Edison put it, “The answer is, unequivocally, yes,” that citizen journalists like Pulliam are protected by the First Amendment. The court also granted Pulliam’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Fort Bend County and Sheriff Fagan violated Pulliam’s free speech and equal protection rights.
However, the legal battle isn’t over. While Pulliam secured a win regarding his exclusion from the press conference, his First Amendment retaliation claims against Fort Bend County and Sergeant Taylor Rollins were denied, leaving parts of the case unresolved. Additionally, Detective Robert Hartfield, involved in Pulliam’s December 2021 arrest, was granted qualified immunity and dismissed from the lawsuit.
The Case of Priscilla Villarreal
Priscilla Villarreal, better known by her online alias Lagordiloca, has become a figurehead in the national debate surrounding First Amendment rights for citizen journalists. Villarreal, who reports on local crime and government issues through her Facebook page, was arrested in 2017 by Laredo law enforcement after she confirmed details about a Border Patrol agent’s suicide and a fatal car accident from a police source. Villarreal’s reporting, often critical of local law enforcement, has made her a target of authorities in Laredo.
She was arrested under a seldom-used Texas law that makes it illegal to solicit nonpublic information for personal gain. Authorities argued that Villarreal’s “gain” was her popularity on Facebook, a flimsy accusation given that most traditional journalists also gain reputations and audiences from their reporting. In her case, the obscure law, designed to combat governmental corruption, was twisted to target her for performing basic journalism. Despite the charges being dropped, Villarreal sued the city for violating her First Amendment rights, a legal battle that continues to this day.
Villarreal’s case took a complicated turn when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled against her in a narrow 9-7 decision, concluding that her arrest did not clearly violate the Constitution. Judge Edith Jones argued that Villarreal’s actions were not in line with those of “mainstream, legitimate outlets.” However, dissenting judges, including conservative appointee Judge James Ho, sharply disagreed, noting that “Priscilla Villarreal was put in jail for asking a police officer a question. If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what would be.”
Villarreal’s legal team, backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), is appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her case has garnered support from across the political spectrum. Organizations such as the Cato Institute, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and prominent media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post have all filed amicus briefs urging the Court to hear her case. They argue that Villarreal’s arrest sets a dangerous precedent for journalists and that the government’s interpretation of the Texas law amounts to a chilling effect on press freedom.
This case could have far-reaching consequences for independent journalists across the country. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear it, it could provide much-needed clarity on the extent of First Amendment protections for nontraditional journalists, particularly those who report outside the confines of legacy media structures.
Defining Qualified Immunity: A Barrier to Justice?
At the core of these cases is the concept of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine often invoked by law enforcement officers to shield themselves from civil lawsuits. Qualified immunity was not legislated by Congress but was developed by the Supreme Court in 1967 in Pierson v. Ray. Its original intent was to protect officials from frivolous lawsuits or the financial burden of defending themselves in court unless they violated “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights.
However, the doctrine has since become a significant barrier to holding government officials, including law enforcement, accountable for constitutional violations. Under qualified immunity, plaintiffs must prove that the exact constitutional right violated was “clearly established” by a prior court ruling. This high bar often results in cases being dismissed before they reach trial, as was nearly the case for both Pulliam and Villarreal.
In Pulliam’s case, Sheriff Fagan argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity for barring the journalist from a press conference, claiming that Pulliam’s rights were not “clearly established.” However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Edison rejected this defense, stating that the right to free press applies equally to all journalists, citizen or otherwise. In Villarreal’s case, however, the 5th Circuit majority granted qualified immunity to the officers who arrested her, despite dissenting opinions that argued her arrest for asking a police officer a question was an obvious violation of her First Amendment rights.
The debate over qualified immunity has grown in recent years, with critics arguing that it has become a tool for shielding government misconduct. Advocates for reform, including organizations from across the ideological spectrum, argue that qualified immunity has expanded beyond its original purpose and now prevents victims of government overreach from seeking justice.
Notably, both the Texas Democrat and Libertarian Parties address the idea of qualified immunity in their state party platforms. The Republican Party of Texas does not.
Party Platform Planks
“Modify qualified immunity doctrine so that officers can be held responsible for misconduct that violates the law.”
– Texas Democratic Party 2024 Platform
“LP Texas supports the abolition of every legal doctrine that shields government employees from liability.”
– Plank I.6.f Qualified Immunity, 2024 Libertarian Party of Texas Platform
First Amendment Implications: Who Gets to Be a Journalist?
Both Justin Pulliam’s and Priscilla Villarreal’s cases highlight the growing tension between law enforcement and citizen journalists, particularly when those journalists use their platforms to expose government wrongdoing. Their legal battles have raised important questions about the role of the First Amendment in protecting independent reporters, who increasingly fill gaps left by traditional media outlets.
The notion that citizen journalists deserve fewer First Amendment protections is not new but has been underscored in recent legal decisions. Judge Edith Jones’ majority opinion in Villarreal’s case highlights this division, implying that only “mainstream, legitimate outlets” can exercise full press rights. However, this view is out of step with the realities of modern media consumption. Many people now get their news from independent platforms like YouTube and Facebook, where individuals like Villarreal and Pulliam play a crucial role in holding local authorities accountable.
At stake in both cases is the interpretation of qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields government officials from being sued unless it is “clearly established” that they violated someone’s rights. For Pulliam, the court ruled that Sheriff Fagan should have known his actions were unconstitutional, but in Villarreal’s case, the 5th Circuit sided with the police, allowing them to avoid liability for her arrest.
The Future of Citizen Journalism in Texas
The outcome of these cases will have a profound impact on the future of independent journalism in Texas and across the United States. If Priscilla Villarreal’s case reaches the Supreme Court, it could set a landmark precedent affirming that citizen journalists are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as their mainstream counterparts. Meanwhile, Justin Pulliam’s victory against Sheriff Fagan demonstrates that the courts are willing to recognize the rights of independent reporters when law enforcement steps over the line.
As journalism continues to evolve, with traditional outlets losing ground to social media-driven platforms, the need to protect the rights of citizen journalists becomes even more critical. Judge Edison’s ruling is a step toward ensuring that individuals who use platforms like YouTube and Facebook to report on governmental and police actions are not subject to a diluted version of the First Amendment. This case, along with Villarreal’s, sets a precedent for how courts will address the evolving role of nontraditional media in holding public institutions accountable.
Voices of Liberty
“No right was deemed by the fathers of the government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government.”
– Frederick Douglas, A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860)
“The freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.”
– George Mason, The ‘Forgotten Founder’ and Influencer to the U.S. Constitution
No responses yet