Six news organizations are suing to block the enforcement of a new Louisiana law they say will interfere with journalists’ ability to do their jobs, arguing that the law improperly gives police officers the power to limit people from approaching them.
News outlets including Gannett Co., Verite News and Scripps Media filed the federal lawsuit July 31 in the Middle District of Louisiana. They allege the new law, House Bill 173, violates journalists’ First and 14th Amendment rights to get close enough to police officers to document news events in public places.
HB 173, which went into effect August 1, makes it a crime to come within 25 feet of police officers who are lawfully performing their jobs and order someone to stop approaching them. The law imposes a maximum punishment of a $500 fine and 60 days of imprisonment.
As previously reported in the Louisiana Record, the president of the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys anticipated a First Amendment challenge to HB173, which was signed into law on May 24 by Gov. Jeff Landry after its 27-12 passage in the state Senate.
“I would expect and hope that the overbreadth of this new law, a version of which the previous governor vetoed, will be litigated in federal court,” Edward Alexander Jr. told the Record in an email. “It is only one of many measures in which the new Louisiana Legislature has gone ‘hog wild’ in the two special sessions, especially the second that was dedicated to criminal justice, and the regular session now wrapping up.”
The law will make it more difficult for reporters in Louisiana to document the activities of police officers and to shine the light on how they are performing their duties, according to the complaint.
“The act authorizes law enforcement officers to bar journalists (and the public) from reporting – for any reason or no reason – on a wide range of events of public interest, including a parade, a rally, an arrest or an accident scene,” the lawsuit states. “Reporters across Louisiana come into close contact with law enforcement officers on a routine basis – when covering everything from crime scenes and press conferences to Mardi Gras and Louisiana State University (LSU) football games.
“The act would, in all of those scenarios and more, empower officers to force journalists and members of the public out of sight and earshot. …”
“If allowed to stand, this law will force journalists to choose between halting their reporting on newsworthy events where police are present, or continuing their coverage and risk committing a crime and facing arrest,” Katie Townsend, legal director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement emailed to the Louisiana Record. “Such an unconstitutional restriction not only harms newsgathering but also ultimately deprives the public of important information.”
The Reporters Committee, which is one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs, has also criticized similar measures enacted in other states. The committee in October 2023 filed a lawsuit over a nearly identical measure enacted in Indiana.
If such a law were in place in Minnesota during the murder of George Floyd, police officers could have ordered a witness to step back so she could not easily film the detainment of Floyd, according to the committee. Former Minneapolis officers were later found responsible for Floyd’s death.
The defendants in the Louisiana lawsuit are Attorney General Liz Murrill, Superintendent of the Louisiana State Police Robert Hodges and East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore III.
Opponents of the new law also point out that it gives officers overly broad authority to limit people from approaching them even when individuals do not pose a safety risk. The law also offers no requirement that police accommodate the First Amendment rights of journalists, they say.
The lawsuit calls on the federal district court to declare the new law in violation of reporters’ constitutional rights to document officers’ actions, to put in place an injunction restraining defendants from enforcing the act and to award plaintiffs reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and legal costs.
Similar measures have been floated – and passed – around the country. Arizona's buffer zone was eight feet and prohibited filming but a federal judge there last year ruled it unconstitutional after a challenge by media entities.
“The law prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect,” Tuchi wrote in his ruling.
The opposite conclusion was reached earlier this year in Indiana. The American Civil Liberties Union lost that case and is obviously not a fan of this type of legislation, worrying it gives police a shield from behind which they can violate the civil rights of citizens.
“The twenty-five-foot buffer legislation fundamentally seeks to curtail Louisianians' ability to hold police accountable for violence and misconduct," ACLU Louisiana Executive Director Alanah Odoms said after the bill's passage.
"If law enforcement officers were operating in a manner that safeguarded the well-being and constitutional rights of the public, there should be no objection to being observed."
The July 31 complaint starts with the role of journalists in reporting abuses of power by governmental officials.
"The Act grants law enforcement officers limitless, standardless discretion to prevent journalists from approaching near enough to document the way officers perform their duties in public places," the suit says.
Officers can bypass the Constitution by ordering onlookers to leave, the suit says.
"Civil disturbances also bring plaintiffs' reporters into close contact with peace officers," it adds. "Plaintiffs reported extensively on protests and civil unrest in June 2020, and more recently covered the clearing of a pro-Palestine encampment on the campus of Tulane University.
"All of that coverage required close contact with members of law enforcement and often relied on videos or photographs captured within 25 feet."
A distance of 25 feet is too far to reliably capture audio, the suit says.
"When an officer is making an arrest, for instance, Plaintiffs' reporters would not be able to hear at 25 feet whether an officer identified themselves as law enforcement or provided Miranda warnings," it adds.
Reps. Bryan Fontenot, Mike Johnson and Roger Wilder were the bill's sponsors. It passed 81-20 in the House in April before approval by the Senate on May 16.
Editor's note: John O'Brien contributed to this report.