The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case involving the enforcement of Tennessee's police buffer-zone law, which could significantly affect news reporters in the state. The court's decision vacated a previous ruling that denied a preliminary injunction against the law, allowing for further examination of its implications for First Amendment rights. The case, Gannett Co., Inc. v. Jeff Long, was filed under docket number 26-5182 and highlights the ongoing struggle between law enforcement practices and press freedoms.

The plaintiffs in this case are several news organizations, including Gannett Company, Inc., which gather and report news in Tennessee. They filed a lawsuit against Jeff Long, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, along with other state and local officials. The plaintiffs argue that the buffer-zone law, enacted in May 2025, infringes on their rights to gather news and is vague in its application.

The dispute began when Tennessee implemented a law that makes it a misdemeanor for individuals to approach within 25 feet of law enforcement officers engaged in specific activities, such as traffic stops or investigations. The law carries penalties that include imprisonment and fines. News organizations quickly filed suit, claiming that the law violates their First Amendment rights and is unconstitutionally vague. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from being enforced against them.

In February 2026, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any specific instances where the law had negatively impacted their reporters. This led to the appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Sixth Circuit panel, which included Chief Judge Raymond M. Kethledge, Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., and Judge Andre B. Mathis, reviewed the case and found that the district court had not adequately considered the likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court stated, "The merits questions presented by the plaintiffs’ claims are, to a significant extent, factbound." This indicates that the court believed the case required more factual development before a proper legal assessment could be made.

In its ruling, the Sixth Circuit emphasized the importance of the First Amendment in this context. The judges noted that the plaintiffs' newsgathering activities are likely protected by the First Amendment and that the buffer-zone law could restrict those activities. They pointed out that the plaintiffs' reporters often find themselves within the 25-foot limit and have been ordered by officers to move back, creating a situation where they must choose between complying with the law and gathering news.

The court vacated the district court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. It instructed the lower court to establish a more comprehensive factual record regarding the plaintiffs' likelihood of success and the other factors relevant to granting injunctive relief. This means that the district court will need to assess how the law affects reporters' ability to cover events and whether it imposes undue restrictions on their First Amendment rights.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for journalists and news organizations in Tennessee and potentially beyond. If the buffer-zone law is found to infringe on First Amendment rights, it could set a precedent for similar laws across the country. The ruling also highlights the delicate balance between law enforcement's need to maintain safety and the press's right to report on events, especially those involving police activity.

As of now, the case has been sent back to the district court for further consideration. It remains to be seen how the lower court will respond to the Sixth Circuit's guidance and what impact this will have on the enforcement of the buffer-zone law. The plaintiffs may continue to seek a preliminary injunction while the case progresses, and the potential for an appeal remains if either party is dissatisfied with the outcome in the district court.