CHICAGO (CN) - An Indiana law that allows police to prohibit people from coming within 25 feet of them if they are engaged in official duties was met by a trepidatious Seventh Circuit panel Tuesday morning.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Indiana Broadcasters Association, the Indiana chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Indianapolis Star and Nextstar Media challenged the law on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds after its initial passage in 2023.

The group of news organizations and journalism non-profits argued that the law grants police limitless discretion to prevent reporters from approaching crime scenes or other newsworthy events where officers might perform their duties in public places.

Jenna Lorrence, Indiana's deputy solicitor general, argued before the panel of judges that the buffer law isn't vague because it requires police to exercise prudence.

"While Indiana's buffer law, like most laws, does not require an officer to enforce it every time she could do so, it is not the type of impermissible law which allows officers to draft its terms each time they enforce it," she said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, a Donald Trump appointee, asked Lorrence if an officer can ask anyone approaching them to step back with 25 feet.

Lorrence said the law doesn't allow police to tell people disperse, but it allows them to tell someone to stop approaching.

She added that the justiciability of the case changed throughout the process, as the Reporters Committee consistently said that they've had issues with officers telling them to move back or move away, rather than an officer telling them to stop approaching.

U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook interrupted Lorrence, and said "none of that was apart of the preliminary injunction."

The Northern District Court of Indiana previously agreed with the journalists, in part, and granted a preliminary injunction on the buffer law in September 2024, which the state of Indiana appealed. The group of reporters motioned to convert the preliminary injunction into a permanent one, on which the court still hasn't issued a ruling.

"The district held for a reason that's implied by my colleagues question, which is what are the reasons an officer may tell somebody to stop approaching," Easterbrook, a Ronald Reagan appointee said.

"The district court made two errors, " Lorrence responded before Easterbrook cut her off again.

"I didn't ask if the district court made errors," he said. "I asked you for what reasons under this statute may an officer tell someone to stop approaching?"

Lorrence said if they are conducting their official duties.

"In other words, for any reason," Easterbrook said. "A good reason, a bad reason, a different reason, a reason the officer makes up, the officer has just had a quarrel with a child and he doesn't feel like having anybody near him - are all of those reasons admissible under this statute?"

The panel of judges remained dubious about what constitutes an official duty that might warrant an officer preventing people from approaching.

"What triggers the officer being able to enforce the buffer law?" asked U.S. Circuit Judge Doris Pryor, a Joe Biden appointee.

Lorrence responded that the law is triggered if an officer is conducting their official duties and orders someone to step 25 feet back. She reiterated that an officer must order someone to stop approaching for the buffer law to go into effect.

Grayson Cleary, an attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argued that the law is not narrowly tailored like Lorrence implied.

"Its scope is untethered to whether a journalist's conduct 'risk[s] substantial harm or if dispersal is otherwise necessary,' Bell v. Keating, and the 25-foot bubble is far broader than necessary to protect any legitimate interest 'roughly ten feet away' is at 'a comfortable remove,'" the plaintiffs say in the initial complaint.

Cleary maintained Tuesday that the buffer law is unconstitutionally vague. He added that even without provision requiring a police order, the law still poses a constant threat for arbitrary suppression of the First Amendment.

"The threat is latent in the existence of the statute," he said.

The panel of judges did not indicate when it might rule on the matter.

Source: Courthouse News Service