A federal appeals panel has told a Nashville judge to finish the question he left on the table: whether news organizations are likely to win their First Amendment challenge to Tennessee's 25-foot police buffer law. The remand does not strike the statute down, and it does not stop an officer from using it.
The Tennessee Lookout reported that a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found U.S. District Judge William Campbell Jr. failed to consider whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim, "the most important (factor) in First Amendment cases." The injunction request now returns to Campbell's court for further consideration.
Twenty-Five Feet, and a Misdemeanor
The General Assembly passed the buffer law in May 2025. It lets officers order members of the public, including media, to stay 25 feet from crime scenes, traffic stops and any "ongoing and immediate threat to public safety." Violators can be charged with a misdemeanor.
State Sen. Mark Pody sponsored the legislation and said it was intended to protect the work of law enforcement. Later that same month, a coalition including the Tennessee Lookout, the Nashville Banner, Gannett, Scripps Media and TEGNA sued, arguing the law is vague and prevents newsgathering in violation of the First Amendment. Paul McAdoo and Grayson Clary of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press represent the coalition, which asked the court to block enforcement while the case proceeds.
The Factor the Judge Skipped
Campbell, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018, denied that request on Feb. 17, 2026. The Reporters Committee's case page says the buffer law remained in place while the lawsuit continued. He found the plaintiffs had not shown that continued enforcement would cause irreparable harm, and said they had not shown a particular situation in which the law impacted a reporter or anyone.
The appeals panel's standing ruling sits next to that finding without much room to spare. Chief Judge Raymond M. Kethledge, Senior Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. and Judge Andre B. Mathis concluded the organizations can sue at this stage because "their reporters routinely face a choice between defying a direct order of a police officer — with an attendant threat of criminal punishment for the reporters and their employers alike — or ceasing activity protected by the First Amendment." Kethledge was appointed by President George W. Bush, Cole by President Bill Clinton and Mathis by President Joe Biden.
Likelihood of success is the factor the panel called most important in a First Amendment case. Campbell has not yet answered it. Until he does, the February denial is what left the statute in force, and this remand does not take it off the street.
What the Order Looks Like in Memphis
The Lookout reported that the Memphis Safe Task Force, a group of federal and state agencies formed by Trump, has invoked the buffer law on multiple occasions. Officers used it to order observers away from traffic stops and arrests, keeping task force activities in public spaces out of view. A statute sold as protection for police work has also functioned as a way to move the cameras back.
Separate June reporting described volunteer observers' accounts of dozens of invocations. Hunter Demster said officers had told him to stand 25 feet back on at least 40 to 50 occasions while he documented task force stops and arrests. David Mason estimated that agents had invoked what he called the Halo Law against him up to 50 times. Those are the observers' counts, not an official tally of every use. The ACLU of Tennessee filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of four observers.
Nearly the Same Statute, Already Stopped Elsewhere
The Lookout reported that similar laws in Indiana and Louisiana were struck down for giving police overly broad discretion. The Reporters Committee filed the challenges in both states. A federal district court in Louisiana blocked enforcement of a law making it a crime to approach within 25 feet of an officer after being told to stay back, holding that the buffer-zone statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it failed to specify what kinds of behavior could trigger an order to retreat. A district court in Indiana blocked enforcement of a nearly identical law signed by that state's governor in 2023.
None of that decides Tennessee. It does describe the argument Campbell still has to weigh: a 25-foot order, a misdemeanor if someone ignores it, and a statute that does not spell out what conduct starts the countdown. The coalition's request is back in his court. Reporters, and the people filming a stop from the curb, are still choosing between the order and the charge.
