⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears oral argument in Rosales versus Terrell. This is an appeal from a district court's denial of qualified immunity at the pleading stage, so nothing in the case has been found as fact: the court is working from the allegations in the complaint. The underlying dispute began with a traffic stop in Alexandria, Louisiana, in June of twenty twenty-two. Two Alexandria police officers, Samuel Terrell and Jim Lewis, stopped a vehicle driven by Mario Rosales on the stated ground that he had failed to signal. Rosales and Gracie Lasyone allege that the stop was pretextual and lacked any legitimate basis, that both of them were detained, and that Rosales was searched, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They also assert a First Amendment claim: the complaint alleges that the officers would not let them record the stop. The officers moved for judgment on the pleadings on qualified immunity grounds; a magistrate judge recommended denying those motions, and the district judge denied them. A denial of qualified immunity can be appealed immediately, before trial, and that is the posture here. At stake is whether the complaint, whose allegations are taken as true at this stage, pleads enough specific fact to overcome qualified immunity, or whether the officers are entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

Rosales v. Terrell (No. 25-30650) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 3, 2026.