Media outlets push back on Tennessee police buffer zone at 6th Circuit

Several news companies argue the law is vague and "flagrantly unconstitutional" since officers can cordon off a 25-foot area for any reason while they carry out official duties.CINCINNATI (CN) — Journalists and other observers shouldn’t face arbitrary arrest when Tennessee police clear public areas during official business, Gannett and other national media outlets argued Wednesday before a Sixth Circuit panel.The companies filed a federal lawsuit against several state officials and John Drake, Nashville police chief, in 2025, claiming the Tennessee Bystander Interference Act violates their First Amendment rightsThe law allows police to establish a 25-foot buffer zone during traffic stops, arrests and other official business. Anyone who violates police orders to stay away can be arrested and criminally prosecuted.The outlets argue that while reporters are routinely asked to give police room, they used to have options; now, they can be subject to six months imprisonment or a fine of up to $500 if they don’t move.Chief U.S. District Judge William Campbell Jr., a Donald Trump appointee, denied the media outlets’ request for a preliminary injunction during oral arguments on Feb. 17 and decided there was no credible threat of enforcement or imminent threat of harm.In their appeal, the outlets argue Campbell’s failure to assess the likelihood of their success on the merits violates established legal precedent, including the 2014 Sixth Circuit case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus.“The point of a preenforcement challenge is to avoid forcing a plaintiff to ’expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights,’ but the district court’s order has put plaintiffs to just that dilemma,” they write.Attorney Grayson Clary of the Washington, D.C., firm Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press argued on behalf of the media outlets Wednesday. Clary emphasized the situations outlined in the law happen daily.“Reporters and the public have an obvious, legitimate interest in understanding what is going on,” Clary told the court.Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge, an appointee of George W. Bush, asked if reporters have a constitutional right to get within 25 feet of an officer dealing with an armed suspect.“Police can issue orders if the reporter’s behavior is obstructive or in a dangerous proximity to the officer,” the attorney answered. “The problem is this law doesn’t have a nexus to any of those interests.”Kethledge said the three scenarios covered by the law, including traffic stops, active investigation of a crime scene and ongoing and immediate threats to public safety, cover most of an officer’s official duties and make it difficult for Gannett to claim the law is unconstitutionally vague.“Why is it a problem?” Kethledge asked. “The law allows police to give a mildly corrective action. Reporters don’t have to leave the scene, they don’t have to stop what they are doing.”The outlets pushed back on the arbitrariness of how police would decide to enforce the law.“We are not asking for the impossible,” Clary said. “The law doesn’t tell police which people are subject to orders or establish a standard for issuing orders.”Gabriel Krimm, senior assistant solicitor general, argued on behalf of the state that the other media companies “misconstrued the law’s text” to engineer a constitutional claim.The state’s attorney emphasized the law merely provides clarity for officers on how to handle interactions with the public and members of the media during execution of their official duties.The law does not grant police any new powers, the state wrote in its brief, but simply allows them to uniformly enforce verbal orders given to bystanders.“Like any bright-line rule, this law reflects a compromise,” the state said. “On one hand, the public has an interest in ‘witnessing’ and ‘videoing’ police work so all parties involved can be ‘held accountable.’ On the other hand, police must be able to ‘focus’ on their jobs but sometimes finds themselves in tense or dangerous ‘situations.’”Krimm said people would only face criminal charges if they didn’t obey orders to stay back, which officers issue largely at their own discretion.“There is no statute that tells police when to shoot a gun. There is no statute that tells police when to handcuff someone,” Krimm told the panel. “We give people guns and badges and tell them to go and enforce the law.”Attorney Peter Vizcarrondo from the Department of Law of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County argued on behalf of the police chief.Vizcarrondo told the court Drake “does not have a dog in this fight” and took no position on the vagueness arguments raised by the media companies.He noted Drake has said he will not enforce the law during litigation and claimed his client should not have been included as a defendant.“That’s cold comfort to the people who have to take the risk of being arrested,” Kethledge responded.Senior U.S. Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., a Bill Clinton appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Andre Mathis, a Joe Biden appointee, rounded out the panel.No timetable has been set for the court’s decision.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads