The article is misleading, though. The case against Villarreal was quickly thrown out because she was clearly within her constitutional rights to do what she di

The article is misleading, though. The case against Villarreal was quickly thrown out because she was clearly within her constitutional rights to do what she did. No one is arguing against that. There is no chance she goes to prison or is convicted for that. The issue is that she is trying to sue the officers for arresting her at all. Her argument is that the officers should have clearly known she had a constitutional right to do what she did, and arresting her for it is a violation of those rights. The courts have ruled previously that the officers can be sued if the thing they are arresting her for is “clearly settled” as being legally protected. If it isn’t, then the officers have immunity to being sued because they were acting on a law they believed to be legal. The question is whether her situation should have fallen under “clearly settled” law or not. I personally believe this situation seems like it is clearly settled enough to not grant the officers immunity, but it isn’t quite as legally clear as whether Villarreal was constitutionally protected (which i know sounds like a contradiction… how can it be clear she is protected but not clear the law was settled? The question is around the level of ‘settled’ that is required for each determination, I believe)