Indiana’s “Buffer Zone” law hits roadblock

Indiana’s “Buffer Zone” law hit another constitutional roadblock last week. Read about
whether it will be enforced against citizens in Indiana. Read our blog about it here:

In Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita, that was decided on August 5,
2025, the court of appeals for the seventh circuit ruled that the challenge to the Indiana buffer zone
law was likely to win based on the merits of the case, and so the court declared a preliminary
injunction protecting the Plaintiff from enforcement of the law. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the
Press v. Rokita, No. 24-2927, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19745 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025).

To briefly explain the Indiana buffer zone law, this statute made it illegal to stand within
twenty-five feet of a police officer once they had given a warning to stay back. We wrote a blog
on it a couple months ago you can check out if you’re interested to learn more. In addition,
preliminary injunctions have changed significantly in the past two months. Basically, the Supreme
Court ruled that universal injunctions, meaning preventing a law from being enforced while it is
being decided on in the courtroom, happen too often and should only be invoked by courts on rare
occasions. We also wrote a blog post on this topic that you can check if you’re interested in how
the court changed universal injunctions.

The court ruled in this case that the buffer zone law was likely unconstitutionally vague
and because of this it more than likely violated the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s important to
remember that this ruling simply stopped the law from currently being enforced and did not
actually declare the law unconstitutional. The Court’s reasoning for the buffer zone law being
unconstitutionally vague relied on the fact that police officers have sole discretion to decide when
they could warn citizens to stay back. The Court noted that because an officer could simply give
the warning to citizens when they were going for a harmless walk or just wanted to ask an officer
directions to somewhere, that the statute was too vague and thus more than likely unconstitutional.
The Court specifically relied on precedent that stated a criminal offense must be defined with
sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and that the
law does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

The last ruling the Court made was to remand the case back to the trial level directing the
lower court to decide what degree of injunction is appropriate to remedy the situation. The lower
Court has to decide whether a universal injunction should be put in place, preventing anyone from
being charged with disobeying the buffer zone law, or if a narrower injunction, such as just
protecting the Plaintiff who brought the suit challenging the law, is adequate to remedy the
situation.

If you have been negatively affected by this law and have questions for an attorney, please contact
McNeelyLaw LLP by calling (317)825-5110.

Disclaimer: This McNeelyLaw LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal
opinion of any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational
purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you
may have concerning your situation.