By james art 
“They thought it would shut me up,” says Priscilla Villarreal. “But what they did was create a monster.”
Villarreal is a journalist in the Texas border city of Laredo. It is at the center of a legal battle with significant First Amendment implications. Villarreal does not work for a newspaper or magazine, nor does he have a post at a television station. Rather, she streams her reports live online, laced with her signature profanity-laced commentary.
Known in Laredo as “Lagordiloka” (which translates to “the fat, crazy lady”), she is a celebrity there, known for her irreverent, dirty approach that often has her broadcasting live from crime scenes and traffic accidents. In 2024, she announced a write-in campaign for Laredo City Council.
Not everyone finds her likable. In 2017, law enforcement, who had often been the target of Villarreal’s critical reporting, arrested her after she broke two relatively benign stories: one about a border patrol agent who killed himself, the other involving a family involved in a fatal road accident.
“They were just looking for something to arrest me,” says Villarreal. “Because I was exposing the corruption, I was exposing their cruelty to detainees. … They were doing things they shouldn’t have.”
Villarreal confirmed her information with a confidential source at the Laredo Police Department. The same agency then arrested her for it, using an obscure Texas law that criminalizes requesting non-public details if the person requesting it can “benefit” from it.
“In Laredo, no one has ever been arrested for this,” said Joey Telles, Villarreal’s criminal defense attorney. She was both the first and the last.
The statute appears to have been written to discourage government corruption, such as bribery. But law enforcement bent the law to open a case against Villarreal for doing what journalists do every day: demand information that hasn’t yet been published (aka scooping) and take advantage of it, usually in the form of on salary.
Villarreal doesn’t get paid. So her “benefit,” according to the government, is Facebook popularity.
The case was eventually dismissed. But when Villarreal sued, arguing that law enforcement should have known better than to arrest a journalist for her reporting, she found that federal judges evaluating the claim were sharply divided. Her lawsuit sparked a national debate—not only about her arrest and whether or not it violated the First Amendment, but also about the nature of “citizen journalism” and whether reporters who take an unconventional approach are entitled to more somewhat stable set of rights.
“Villarreal and others are portraying her as a martyr in the name of journalism. It is inappropriate,” wrote Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, who ruled 9–7 against Villarreal. “Legitimate mainstream media outlets routinely do not reveal the identities of accident or suicide victims until government officials or family members release that information publicly.” The officials she sued were granted qualified immunity, which bars victims of government abuse from prosecuting federal civil rights cases if the alleged misconduct has not yet been “clearly established” as unconstitutional.
Although her approach can be polarizing, Villarreal has drawn support from ideologically diverse groups, including the Christian conservative law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, the libertarian Cato Institute and the left-leaning Center for Constitutional Accountability. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press called the 5th Circuit’s decision “a catastrophic decision for journalists’ rights” and along with 21 media organizations, including New York Times and The Washington Postfiled an amicus brief request that the Supreme Court hear the case. Several current and former journalists including ReasonJacob Sullum, also presented a brief in support of Villarreal. In October, the Supreme Court overturned that decision and ordered the 5th Circuit to review it.
“I cringe at the idea that judges can throw out distinctions that have any meaningful legal significance between citizen journalists and journalists who work for larger companies,” said Gregg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Villarreal in her complaint. We should all agree, he says, “that basically just because an individual judge doesn’t consider you a ‘legitimate journalist’ … you still have the same free speech and First Amendment rights as a New York Times journalist.”