Federal Judge Strikes Down Louisiana’s Controversial 25-Foot Buffer Zone Law for Police
The ruling noted that such vagueness could result in inconsistent enforcement, potentially deterring journalists, activists, and the public from engaging in their First Amendment rights, such as observing and reporting on police activities.

BATON ROUGE, La. — A federal judge has struck down a Louisiana law that required individuals to remain at least 25 feet away from police officers while they are working. The judge ruled that the law was unconstitutionally vague, raising concerns that it could infringe upon First Amendment rights and restrict public oversight of law enforcement.
Signed into law by Governor Jeff Landry in May 2024, the law aimed to enhance police officer safety amid rising national concerns about violence against law enforcement. It prohibited individuals from approaching within 25 feet of a police officer while they were lawfully performing their duties, after being instructed to stop or retreat. Proponents argued that the measure was necessary to protect officers and provide them with the space they needed to safely carry out their responsibilities.
However, the federal judge found the law's language unclear and open to interpretation, particularly with terms like "knowingly" and "intentionally." The ruling noted that such vagueness could result in inconsistent enforcement, potentially deterring journalists, activists, and the public from engaging in their First Amendment rights, such as observing and reporting on police activities. This decision is being seen as a significant victory for those concerned about civil liberties and transparency in policing.
Grace Sinclair, a staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, applauded the ruling, emphasizing that it was not only important for Louisiana but for the nation as a whole. “This case is not just about Louisiana,” Sinclair said. “We’ve seen similar laws cropping up across the United States, and we’re relieved that courts are taking the time to closely examine these measures that threaten free speech and public oversight.”
Supporters of the 25-foot buffer law argued that it was a necessary tool to protect police officers, who face increased risks while on duty. They contended that the law would help ensure officers had the space they needed to operate without the risk of interference or confrontation. District Attorney Hillel Moore, one of the defendants in the case, defended the law, stating that it was designed to safeguard law enforcement personnel and give them room to perform their jobs safely. “We will continue to support law enforcement and follow whatever the final ruling is,” Moore said.
On the other hand, critics of the law argued that existing laws were already in place to address concerns about obstructing police work or interfering with law enforcement. They expressed concern that the buffer zone law would unnecessarily limit public and journalistic access to police activity, curbing important freedoms of speech and press.
The Attorney General’s Office, which also supported the law, expressed disappointment in the court’s decision. The office defended the measure, stating that it was created to protect both law enforcement officers and the public. "We believe this law is a reasonable approach to ensuring officer safety while balancing the needs of the public,” an office spokesperson said.
This ruling comes as part of a broader national debate surrounding laws that impose restrictions on how close individuals can get to police officers during their official duties. Similar buffer zone laws are being challenged in other states, including Indiana, raising questions about the potential impact on civil liberties and the rights of citizens to observe and document police activities. As legal challenges continue, the future of such laws remains uncertain.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between law enforcement safety and the protection of First Amendment rights, with significant implications for the public’s ability to hold authorities accountable. The ruling will likely serve as a critical reference point for other states considering similar laws, as well as a reminder of the delicate balance between officer protection and public freedoms.