Seventh Circuit Blocks Indiana’s ‘Buffer Law,’ Leaves Universal Injunction Question Open
August 11, 2025 — In a significant ruling for press freedom and due process, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Indiana’s 2023 “buffer law,” which made it a Class C misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of a police officer engaged in official duties after being ordered to stop. The unanimous decision, issued on August 5, 2025, found the law unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment, affirming a lower court’s ruling that it risks arbitrary enforcement. However, the court remanded the case to determine the scope of the injunction, leaving open whether it applies only to the plaintiffs or all Indiana residents, in light of recent Supreme Court guidance on universal injunctions.
Background of the Case
Indiana’s “buffer law,” officially titled “Unlawful Encroachment on an Investigation” (Indiana Code § 35-44.1-2-14), took effect on July 1, 2023, under then-Governor Eric Holcomb. The statute aimed to create a 25-foot buffer zone around on-duty law enforcement officers, criminalizing any intentional approach within that distance after a dispersal order. Supporters argued it protected officer safety and investigation integrity, but critics, including media organizations, claimed it granted police excessive discretion, threatening First Amendment rights to record and report on police activities in public spaces.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, alongside media entities like the Indianapolis Star, Indiana Broadcasters Association, and others, challenged the law in November 2023, arguing it was vague and chilled newsgathering. U.S. District Judge James R. Sweeney II issued a preliminary injunction in September 2024, finding the law likely violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause due to its lack of clear standards for enforcement. The state appealed, defending the law’s clarity and necessity.
The Seventh Circuit’s Ruling
Writing for the panel, Judge Doris L. Pryor emphasized the law’s vagueness, stating it offers “no guidance” to officers on when to issue a dispersal order, risking arbitrary enforcement. “The Fourteenth Amendment will not tolerate a law subjecting pedestrians to arrest merely because a police officer had a bad breakfast,” Pryor wrote, highlighting the statute’s failure to define when an officer may trigger criminal liability. The court drew on precedents like Kolender v. Lawson (1983) and City of Chicago v. Morales (1999), which struck down laws for vesting police with unfettered discretion.
The court rejected Indiana’s argument that the law’s 25-foot distance requirement provided sufficient clarity, noting that the trigger—an officer’s subjective order to stop—lacked any objective standard. This “blank check” approach, the court held, invited discriminatory application, particularly against journalists seeking to document police activity. The ruling affirmed the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs faced irreparable harm to their First Amendment-protected newsgathering without the injunction.
Notably, the Seventh Circuit distinguished this case from Nicodemus v. City of South Bend (2025), where a different panel upheld the same law against a First Amendment challenge, finding it a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction. The Reporters Committee case, however, succeeded on vagueness grounds, illustrating that even facially neutral laws can fail constitutional scrutiny if they lack clear enforcement criteria.
Universal Injunction Question
While affirming the injunction, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court to reassess its scope following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Trump v. CASA Inc., which cautioned against universal injunctions that extend beyond the named plaintiffs. The panel noted that Judge Sweeney must determine whether the injunction should apply only to the plaintiff media organizations or statewide, a question that could set a precedent for how courts handle broad equitable relief post-CASA.
Implications and Reactions
The ruling is a victory for press advocates, with Reporters Committee attorney Grayson Clary calling it “a significant win for journalists in Indiana, who deserve to cover law enforcement without fear of arrest.” The decision aligns with similar challenges in Louisiana and Tennessee, where courts have struck down comparable buffer laws for vagueness.
Indiana’s passage of a second buffer law in 2025, which requires officers to “reasonably believe” a person’s presence interferes with their duties, did not moot the case, as the state intends to enforce both statutes. The Seventh Circuit’s focus on “officer-discretion vagueness” may prompt other states to revise similar laws to include explicit standards, such as requiring a clear threat or interference before issuing dispersal orders.
Looking Ahead
As the district court reconsiders the injunction’s scope, the case could influence how federal courts balance press freedoms with public safety regulations. For now, Indiana’s 2023 buffer law remains unenforceable, a development celebrated by media and civil liberties groups but likely to spark further legislative and legal debates.
For more information on the case, visit the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website or the Seventh Circuit’s official docket.