In a ruling issued on Friday, U.S. District Judge John deGravelles granted a preliminary injunction, indicating that the so-called police-buffer law infringes on the 14th Amendment due to its vagueness. Reports from local media indicate that the judge highlighted issues regarding the clarity of the law in his decision.
The injunction was requested by various media organizations that filed a lawsuit against the measure, which was enacted by the Louisiana Legislature and took effect on August 1. A hearing regarding the law took place in December.
Judge deGravelles pointed out that the law does not adequately define conditions under which officers might command someone to back off. Furthermore, he remarked that it fails to provide clear guidelines to officers for issuing such commands.
“The potential for arbitrary and biased application is significant,” deGravelles stated in his order.
According to this law, individuals found guilty of “knowingly or intentionally” approaching police engaged in their “official duties,” after receiving a directive to “stop approaching or retreat,” could face up to 60 days of imprisonment, a fine reaching $500, or potentially both penalties.
Critics of the law argue that this enforceable “buffer zone” could obstruct journalists’ rights to document police activity, thereby limiting their capacity to gather news effectively.
“The likelihood of plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to gather news being compromised is significant if the act is not suspended,” Judge deGravelles commented.
Attorneys representing the state are backing the law and had sought its dismissal, a request that the judge also denied on Friday. During court proceedings in December, state representatives asserted that the media’s concerns were based on “hypothetical” scenarios, noting that no arrests had yet occurred concerning this new regulation.
In response to the ruling, Attorney General Liz Murrill reaffirmed on Friday that her office intends to continue defending the law in court.
“We believe it is a reasonable regulation on the time, place, and manner to prevent interference with law enforcement activities,” she stated. “Our goal is to safeguard the public, which justifies this law.”
Comparable laws have emerged in other states recently, and both Arizona and Indiana have seen courts successfully block similar legislative measures from being enforced.
