Media Outlets Appeal Tennessee Police Buffer Zone Law at Sixth Circuit
Journalists and national media companies brought their fight against a Tennessee police buffer zone to a federal appeals panel. Gannett and other outlets urged the Sixth Circuit to reconsider a lower court ruling that denied an injunction against the law.
The underlying federal lawsuit, filed in 2025, targets state officials and Nashville Police Chief John Drake. The media outlets claim the Tennessee Bystander Interference Act infringes upon their First Amendment rights by penalizing individuals who fail to maintain distance.
Understanding the Buffer Zone Law
The statute permits police officers to set up a 25-foot buffer zone during traffic stops, arrests, and other official business. Anyone who refuses a police order to stay away can face criminal prosecution, resulting in up to six months of imprisonment or a fine of up to $500. During oral arguments, attorneys discussed whether the rules are unconstitutionally vague and lack specific standards for which bystanders receive orders.
Chief U.S. District Judge William Campbell Jr. initially denied the media outlets a preliminary injunction on Feb. 17, finding no credible threat of enforcement. On appeal, the media argued that this failure to assess their likelihood of success violates legal precedent, such as the 2014 Sixth Circuit case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. Attorney Grayson Clary of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press represented the outlets.
Source: Courthouse News Service
Arguments From the State and Police
State attorneys defended the statute, arguing that media companies misconstrued the text to fabricate a constitutional claim. Gabriel Krimm, senior assistant solicitor general, stated that the law merely clarifies how officers handle public interactions and uniformly enforces verbal commands without granting any new police powers.
Meanwhile, an attorney representing Nashville Police Chief John Drake argued that the chief takes no position on the vagueness arguments and does not have a dog in the fight, noting that Drake stated he will not enforce the law during ongoing litigation.
Practical Impact for Observers and Reporters
For ordinary people and reporters in Tennessee, observing or filming police activity carries a legal risk if officers issue an order to step back. Because the law relies on officer discretion without detailing strict standards for who must move, individuals who fail to comply face misdemeanor criminal charges, fines up to $500, or up to six months in jail. The three scenarios covered by the statute encompass a large portion of daily police duties, meaning encounters can happen routinely.
Observers who wish to document law enforcement must remain aware of potential verbal orders to stay 25 feet away during official business. No timetable has been set for the panel’s decision, leaving the risk active while the appeal moves forward.
Consulting an attorney experienced in media or constitutional law can help clarify your rights if you face citation or arrest under police interference statutes.
What this means: our conclusions
- RiskPotential Chill on Observation
If the law stands without stricter limits, reporters and citizens may hesitate to record police activity due to the risk of criminal charges.
- What to watchOfficer Discretion Concerns
The lack of specific guidelines on who must move leaves enforcement up to individual officers, which could lead to inconsistent application.
- ContextState Safety Rationale
The state maintains that a bright-line rule helps officers focus on tense or dangerous duties while still allowing public accountability.
- What to watchPending Sixth Circuit Ruling
Monitor upcoming court filings from the Sixth Circuit panel, as the eventual decision will determine whether the preliminary injunction proceeds.
- What to doKnow Your Local Rules
If you film police work in Tennessee, be prepared to follow distance orders promptly to avoid misdemeanor charges while the litigation continues.
| Party | Core Position |
|---|---|
| Media Outlets (Gannett et al.) | Claim the law violates First Amendment rights and lacks enforcement standards. |
| State of Tennessee | Argues the statute provides clear guidance and uniform enforcement for officers. |
| Nashville Police Chief | Takes no position on vagueness and pledged not to enforce it during litigation. |
Source: Courthouse News Service
This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 21, 2026.
Source: Courthouse News Service
Lawyers in nearby states
No attorneys in Tennessee are listed in our directory yet. Lawyers are licensed state by state, so before hiring, check that the attorney is admitted to practice in Tennessee.