UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
GANNETT CO., INC., GRAY LOCAL
MEDIA, INC., NASHVILLE PUBLIC
MEDIA, INC. d/b/a NASHVILLE
BANNER, NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP,
INC., SCRIPPS MEDIA, INC., STATES CASE NO. __________
NEWSROOM d/b/a TENNESSEE
LOOKOUT, and TEGNA INC., COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFF LONG, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety and Homeland Security, GLENN
FUNK, in his official capacity as District
Attorney General for Nashville & Davidson
County, Tennessee, and JOHN DRAKE, in
his official capacity as Chief of Metropolitan
Nashville Police Department,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
1. “[T]he press serves and was designed to serve as a powerful antidote to
any abuses of power by governmental officials[,] and as a constitutionally chosen means
for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were
selected to serve.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 219 (1966).
2. That role is of particular importance in the context of law enforcement,
where journalists “guard[] against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police”—
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 Filed 07/22/25 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1
and the important public powers they exercise—“to extensive public scrutiny.”
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350 (1966).
3. On May 9, 2025, Tennessee enacted a statute, SB 30 (“the Act”), that
unconstitutionally abridges the press’s ability to fulfill that function.
4. In relevant part, Section 5 of the Act makes it a misdemeanor to
“intentionally approach[], within twenty-five feet (25’), a law enforcement officer after
the officer has ordered the person to stop approaching or to retreat and the officer is
lawfully engaged in the execution of official duties” in certain scenarios.
5. The Act applies whenever an officer is engaged in “(1) A lawful traffic
stop; (2) An active investigation of the scene of an alleged crime; or (3) An ongoing and
immediate threat to public safety”—contexts broad enough to sweep in most of what
officers do in public, from enforcing the law at a public assembly to conducting disaster
response. But unlike background Tennessee law, the Act does not require that an
individual in fact interfere––or intend to interfere––with an officer’s execution of any of
those duties, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602 (prohibiting obstruction of law
enforcement officer), or that their presence be “dangerous,” id. § 39-17-305.
6. The Act went into effect on July 1, 2025, and Section 5 will be codified at
Tenn. Code Ann., Title 39, Chapter 16, Part 6.
7. The Act has grave implications for the ability of reporters and news
organizations, including Plaintiffs, to exercise their First Amendment rights.
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 2 07/22/25
Filed Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 2
8. The Act grants officers standardless discretion to prevent journalists from
approaching near enough to document the way officers perform their duties in public
places. In other words, it provides for “government by the moment-to-moment
opinions of a policeman on his beat.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90
(1965) (quoting Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 579 (1965) (Black, J., concurring)).
9. 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.
10. The Act applies with equal force to a reporter gathering the news in a
park, standing on a sidewalk, or lawfully present in other spaces open to the public.
11. And the Act provides no exceptions for circumstances where 25 feet is too
far—as it will often be too far—for the press or public to document newsworthy
activity, including officers’ own performance of their official responsibilities.
12. The breadth and importance of the reporting that will be chilled if the Act
goes into effect despite those infirmities are difficult to overstate.
13. Reporters across Tennessee come into close contact with law enforcement
officers on a routine basis, covering everything from crime scenes and protests to CMA
Fest and University of Tennessee football games. The Act, in those scenarios and more,
empowers officers to force journalists and members of the public out of sight and
earshot—and “[i]f police could stop criticism or filming by asking onlookers to leave,”
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 3 07/22/25
Filed Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 3
officers could “effectively silence them” and “bypass the Constitution.” Jordan v.
Jenkins, 73 F.4th 1162, 1169–70 (10th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).
14. Plaintiffs are Gannett Co., Inc.; Gray Local Media, Inc.; Nashville Public
Media, Inc. d/b/a Nashville Banner; Nexstar Media Group, Inc.; Scripps Media, Inc.;
States Newsroom d/b/a Tennessee Lookout; and TEGNA Inc.—organizations whose
journalists exercise the right to gather and publish the news in Tennessee.
15. Plaintiffs bring this action to redress the constitutional harms the Act
threatens to inflict on their ability to gather and report news in Tennessee.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
17. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b) because Defendants reside in this District and because a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
PARTIES
18. Gannett Co., Inc. (“Gannett”) is the largest local newspaper company in
the United States. It has more than 200 local daily brands in 43 states. In Tennessee,
Gannett owns and operates through its subsidiaries the Tennessean in Nashville, the
Commercial Appeal in Memphis, the Knoxville News Sentinel in Knoxville, the Leaf-
Chronicle in Clarksville, the Daily Herald in Columbia, the Oak Ridger in Oak Ridge, the
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 4 07/22/25
Filed Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4
Daily News Journal in Murfreesboro, and the Jackson Sun in Jackson. These publications
employ full-time reporters who gather news on matters of public concern on a routine
daily basis, including news about law enforcement gathered through the use of
audiovisual recording equipment.
19. Gray Local Media, Inc. (“Gray”) is a multimedia company headquartered
in Atlanta, Georgia. The company is the nation’s largest owner of top-rated local
television stations and digital assets serving 113 television markets that collectively
reach approximately 36 percent of US television households. Gray’s presence in
Tennessee includes television stations WSMV (Nashville), RTM Studios (Franklin),
Action News (Memphis), and WVLT (Knoxville). Gray employs full-time reporters
who gather news on matters of public concern on a routine daily basis, including news
about law enforcement gathered through the use of audiovisual recording equipment.
20. Nashville Public Media, Inc. is a non-profit newsroom in Nashville, doing
business as the Nashville Banner (“Nashville Banner”). Nashville Banner employs full-
time reporters who gather news on matters of public concern on a routine daily basis,
including news about law enforcement gathered through the use of audiovisual
recording equipment.
21. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (“Nexstar”) is a leading diversified media
company that leverages localism to bring new services and value to consumers and
advertisers through its traditional media, digital, and mobile media platforms. In
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 5 07/22/25
Filed Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 5
Tennessee, Nexstar owns and operates WKRN in Nashville, WREG in Memphis, WJKT
in Jackson, and WATE in Knoxville. Nexstar employs full-time reporters who gather
news on matters of public concern on a routine daily basis, including news about law
enforcement gathered through the use of audiovisual recording equipment.
22. Scripps Media, Inc. (“Scripps”) is the nation’s fourth-largest local TV
broadcaster, operating a portfolio of 61 stations in 41 markets. In Tennessee, Scripps
owns and operates WTVF in Nashville. Scripps employs full-time reporters who gather
news on matters of public concern on a routine daily basis, including news about law
enforcement gathered through the use of audiovisual recording equipment.
23. States Newsroom is a non-profit network of local newsrooms. In
Tennessee, States Newsroom operates the Nashville-based Tennessee Lookout.
Tennessee Lookout employs full-time reporters who gather news on matters of public
concern on a routine daily basis, including news about law enforcement gathered
through the use of audiovisual recording equipment.
24. TEGNA Inc. (“TEGNA”) is a multimedia company headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia, and owns or services (through shared service agreements or other
similar agreements) 64 news brands in 51 markets. In Tennessee, TEGNA owns and
operates WATN and WLMT in Memphis, and WBIR in Knoxville. TEGNA employs
full-time reporters who gather news on matters of public concern on a routine daily
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 6 07/22/25
Filed Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 6
basis, including news about law enforcement gathered through the use of audiovisual
recording equipment.
25. Defendant Jeff Long is the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety and Homeland Security. Under Tennessee law, he oversees the Division of
Protective Services, which provides “police services by sworn officers for the State
Capitol, the Legislative Plaza, the War Memorial Building and all state office buildings,
and to provide personal security from time to time of state officials.” Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 4-3-2006(a)(2). Under Defendant Long’s direction and control, state facility protection
officers are authorized to “make arrests for public offenses committed against state
officials or employees or committed upon, about, or against property owned or leased
by the state or on public roads or rights-of-way passing through such owned or leased
property.” Id. § 4-3-2019(c). Under Long, the Tennessee Department of Safety and
Homeland Security likewise houses the Tennessee Highway Patrol. See id. § 4-3-2003.
Defendant Long is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant Glenn Funk is the District Attorney General for Metropolitan
Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Under Tennessee law, he is empowered to
“prosecute in the courts of the district all violations of the state criminal statutes and
perform all prosecutorial functions attendant thereto.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-7-103(1).
Defendant Funk is sued in his official capacity.
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 7 07/22/25
Filed Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 7
27. Defendant John Drake is the Chief of the Metropolitan Nashville Police
Department. The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, under his supervision and
control, is responsible “for the preservation of the public peace, prevention and
detection of crime, apprehension of criminals, protection of personal and property
rights and enforcement of laws of the State of Tennessee and ordinances of the
metropolitan government.” Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County, Tennessee, § 8.202. Defendant Drake is sued in his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
28. Plaintiffs are organizations that gather and publish the news and
represent the interests of journalists and news organizations working in Tennessee.
29. Plaintiffs’ journalists, photographers, and videographers routinely
document the manner in which law enforcement officers perform official duties in
public places. Plaintiffs are in the business of regularly publishing newsworthy
information and all employ journalists assigned to cover activities of Tennessee law
enforcement on a regular basis.
30. Plaintiffs’ journalists routinely encounter law enforcement officers,
particularly when covering civil disturbances and protest activity that may involve “the
scene of an alleged crime” or an “ongoing and immediate threat to public safety.”
31. For instance, Nexstar station WKRN in Nashville reported extensively on
protests and civil unrest in 2020 in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, see, e.g.,
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 8 07/22/25
Filed Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 8
Joey Gill, Nashville ‘I Will Breathe’: Protesters March to Capitol Hill for George Floyd, WKRN
(May 30, 2020), http://bit.ly/448PgHp; as did WREG in Memphis, see Courtney
Anderson & Mitchell Koch, Protesters Gather in Downtown Memphis to Demonstrate for
George Floyd, WREG (May 28, 2020), https://bit.ly/436L61F; and WATE in Knoxville,
Knoxville Protestors March Through Downtown for Third Day After Death of George Floyd,
WATE (June 1, 2020), https://bit.ly/43SVLfL.
32. The same is true of Scripps station WTVF in Nashville. See, e.g.,
NewsChannel5, Police Use Tear Gas to Clear Protesters from the Courthouse Area, YouTube
(May 30, 2020), https://bit.ly/3Gv0c8w.
33. The same is true of Tennessee Lookout. See, e.g., J. Holly McCall, Nashville
Riots: Historic Metro Courthouse Burns, Tenn. Lookout (May 31, 2020),
https://perma.cc/E3XR-CTAQ; J. Holly McCall, Weekend Protests, Riots Rock State, Tenn.
Lookout (June 1, 2020), https://bit.ly/4dZrNLN.
34. The same is true of the Tennessean, Gannett’s daily newspaper in
Nashville, see, e.g., Nashville Protesters, Police Clash After 'I Will Breathe' Rally, Tennessean
(May 30, 2020), https://bit.ly/4iViLAl; and the Memphis Commercial Appeal, see, e.g.,
Desiree Stennett et al., Memphis Protests: Demonstrators Confront Law Enforcement
Throughout Sunday Night, Memphis Com. Appeal (June 1, 2020), https://bit.ly/4dTZsGq.
35. The same is true of Gray stations WSMV in Nashville, see, e.g., WSMV 4
Nashville, MNPD Officers Take Knee With Protesters, YouTube (June 4, 2020),
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 9 07/22/25
Filed Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 9
https://bit.ly/4ixMn6p; Action News in Memphis, see, e.g., Brandon Richard, Officers in
Riot Gear Descend on Beale Street, 201 Poplar, Action News (May 31, 2020),
https://bit.ly/447ZGXM; and WVLT in Knoxville, "No justice. No peace:" Protest Draws
Hundreds to Knoxville, WVLT (June 5, 2020), https://bit.ly/43U2c2a.
36. And the same is true of TEGNA stations WATN in Memphis, see, e.g.,
Jalyn Souchek, Emotions Boil Over During Fifth Night of Memphis Protests, Tear Gas Used
on Protesters, WATN (June 1, 2020), https://bit.ly/42PfpZh; and WBIR in Knoxville, see
‘It's Gone on for Too Long' | Hundreds of Marchers Return to Downtown Knoxville for
Peaceful Protest, WBIR (June 5, 2020), https://bit.ly/4mTt0Io.
37. More recently, Plaintiffs have reported on law enforcement’s response to
encampments and protests at universities throughout Tennessee. See, e.g., Keenan
Thomas & Angela Dennis, Police Arrest Demonstrators on University of Tennessee Campus,
Knoxville News Sentinel (May 3, 2024), https://bit.ly/42zaGfJ; What We Know About the 9
Arrested on UT's Campus During Demonstrations, WBIR (May 3, 2024),
https://bit.ly/4lXYD3d; Steven Hale, Campus Protests: Vanderbilt Students’ Pro-Palestine
Encampment Enters Second Month, Nashville Banner (Apr. 26, 2024),
https://bit.ly/3S8SdAn; Kenley Hargett, Vanderbilt University Students Mark 1 Month in
Pro-Palestinian Tent Encampment, WKRN (May 1, 2024), https://bit.ly/3RG3tnI.
38. All of that coverage required close contact with members of law
enforcement and often relied on videos or photographs captured within 25 feet.
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 10 07/22/25
Filed Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 10
39. Plaintiffs’ reporters also routinely come into close contact with state
facility protection officers when covering newsworthy events, including protest activity
on state property. See, e.g., Adam Friedman, From Grief to Action in Nashville, Protesters
Demand Change at the State Capitol, Tenn. Lookout (Mar. 30, 2023),
https://perma.cc/9TBL-AWSS; Steve Mehling, Protestors Call on Lawmakers to Vote Down
Undocumented Students Bill, WSMV (Apr. 10, 2025), https://bit.ly/4jQflPV; Jessica Barker
& Elisheva Wimberly, ‘They Could Make Every Single School in this State a Million Times
Safer’: Protesters Convene Outside Special Legislative Session, WKRN (Jan. 27, 2025),
https://bit.ly/42zsRBY.
40. A broad range of other newsworthy events similarly bring Plaintiffs’
reporters into close contact with members of Tennessee law enforcement on a routine
basis—including at crime scenes,1 accident scenes, or during disaster response
activities—and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
41. In those circumstances, Section 5 of the Act will now put Plaintiffs’
reporters at risk of arrest in the course of their routine newsgathering.
1 See, e.g., Aubriella Jackson, Parents Rush to Reunification Center After Shooting at
Antioch High School, WKRN (Jan. 22, 2025), https://bit.ly/3RGWn2l; Cassandra
Stephenson, Nashville Shooting Sparks Renewed Pleas for an End to Gun Violence, Tennessee
Lookout (Oct. 14, 2024), https://perma.cc/GKU7-X5YC; Kirsten Fiscus and Craig Shoup,
Suspect Dead After Shooting by DEA Agent Outside Midtown Hotel in Nashville, Tennessean
(Apr. 16, 2025), https://bit.ly/3EJwhJ9.
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 11 07/22/25
Filed Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 11
42. On May 9, 2025, Governor Bill Lee signed the Act into law, creating the
following, new criminal offense at Tenn. Code Ann. Title 39, Chapter 16, Part 6:
A person commits an offense who intentionally approaches,
within twenty-five feet (25’), a law enforcement officer after
the officer has ordered the person to stop approaching or to
retreat and the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of
official duties[.]
43. The Act applies whenever an officer is engaged in “(1) A lawful traffic
stop; (2) An active investigation of the scene of an alleged crime; or (3) An ongoing and
immediate threat to public safety”—scenarios broad enough to sweep in most of what
law enforcement officers do in public, from enforcing the law at a public assembly to
conducting disaster response. But the Act does not require that an individual in fact
interfere––or intend to interfere––with an officer’s execution of any of those duties, or
that their presence pose any other risk to any legitimate government interest.
44. The Act went into effect on July 1, 2025.
45. The Act directly burdens the exercise of First Amendment rights.
46. With the Act now in effect, whenever one of Plaintiffs’ journalists is told to
retreat while standing within 25 feet of law enforcement, that reporter is put to a choice
between committing a crime or forgoing newsgathering.
47. For visual journalists in particular, 25 feet is often too far to obtain a clear
line of sight to newsworthy events, especially at crowded public events like protests,
festivals, and major sports games that may involve some degree of lawbreaking.
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 12 07/22/25
Filed Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 12
48. That distance is also too great to reliably capture audio recordings. See
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W. N.Y., 519 U.S. 357, 377–78 (1997) (noting that a 15-
foot buffer extends beyond “normal conversational distance”).
49. Without audio, video may give the public a misleading or incomplete
understanding of an event. 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 to the individual under arrest.
50. A 25-foot distance is likewise too great for Plaintiffs’ journalists to conduct
interviews and ask questions of officers or witnesses present on the scene of an event.
51. For journalists and news organizations, there is no adequate substitute for
first-hand audio and/or visual recordings, “uniquely reliable and powerful methods of
preserving and disseminating news and information about events that occur in public.”
Am. C.L. Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 607 (7th Cir. 2012).
52. Plaintiffs and their journalists also fear that complying with the Act is not
practically possible under the circumstances in which reporters often work.
53. Especially at fast-moving crowd scenes, journalists cannot reliably
determine whether they are within 25 feet of a particular officer. See Schenck, 519 U.S. at
378 n.9 (noting that it would be “quite difficult” to tell whether speaker attempting to
obey 15-foot buffer zone “actually strayed to within 14 or 13 feet”).
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 13 07/22/25
Filed Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 13
54. Reporters also cannot comply when told to withdraw when there is no
practical way to retreat through a densely packed crowd, where there is not enough
space on a public sidewalk to withdraw without trespassing on private property, or
where multiple officers have issued overlapping, contradictory instructions. See id. at
378–79 (noting the difficulty that speakers would face in “know[ing] how to remain in
compliance” with floating 15-foot buffer zones surrounding multiple individuals).
55. As a result, the Act burdens and chills Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First
Amendment rights to document and report on matters of public concern, discouraging
Plaintiffs—as well as members of the public and press across Tennessee—from
approaching the scene of newsworthy events covered by the Act for fear of arrest.
56. The Act violates the First Amendment by “vest[ing] unbridled discretion
in a government official over whether to permit or deny expressive activity.” City of
Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 755 (1988).
57. The Act authorizes officers to issue a dispersal order even if an
individual’s presence is not obstructive and poses no risk to any legitimate interest.
58. The Act does not require that dispersal orders be tailored to accommodate
the First Amendment right to document government activity.
59. Lawmakers made no findings to support the choice of a 25-foot buffer or
the need for the Act in light of existing Tennessee laws that already prohibit bona fide
obstruction. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602 (obstruction of law enforcement officer);
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 14 07/22/25
Filed Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 14
id. § 39-17-305 (refusal to obey dispersal order issued in order “to maintain public safety
in dangerous proximity” to an emergency (emphasis added)).
60. In addition, the Act is unconstitutionally vague because it “fail[s] to
provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct
it prohibits” and “authorize[s] and even encourage[s] arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999).
61. In each of those respects, because a journalist in Tennessee can “stand on a
public sidewalk . . . only at the whim of any police officer,” the Act poses an “ever-
present potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties,” including the
right to document what officials do in public spaces. Shuttlesworth, 382 U.S. at 90–91.
62. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to issue a declaration that the Act
violates the Constitution and an injunction against its enforcement by Defendants.
COUNT I
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Void for Vagueness)
63. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs
of the Complaint.
64. The Act “fail[s] to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary
people to understand what conduct it prohibits” and “authorize[s] and even
encourage[s] arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” City of Chicago, 527 U.S. at 56.
In both of those respects, the Act is unconstitutionally vague.
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 15 07/22/25
Filed Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 15
65. Because the Act authorizes officers to order an individual to retreat for
any reason (or for no reason at all), it fails to “give adequate warning of the boundary
between the permissible and the impermissible.” Id. at 59.
66. The Act likewise fails to provide fair notice and an opportunity to comply
because reporters cannot workably determine whether they are within the 25-foot
bubble in many cases, as when gathering news at a crowded public event.
67. The Act is independently void for vagueness because the law “is so
standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.”
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008).
68. The Act contains no standards of any kind to guide law enforcement
officers in deciding who should be ordered to retreat.
69. In each respect, the Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT II
Violation of the First Amendment (As Applied)
70. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs
of the Complaint.
71. Plaintiffs intend to engage in peaceful, nonobstructive newsgathering
within 25 feet of law enforcement officers performing their duties in public spaces,
including near crime scenes, traffic stops, and settings that may involve a threat to
public safety or lawbreaking, such as public assemblies, accidents, or disaster scenes.
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 16 07/22/25
Filed Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 16
72. Plaintiffs’ proposed course of conduct is protected by the First
Amendment. The Constitution safeguards the right to “gather news,” CBS Inc. v.
Young, 522 F.2d 234, 238 (6th Cir. 1975), including in “public settings” like those in
which Plaintiffs encounter officers, Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997, 1002 (6th Cir. 2022).
73. The First Amendment also protects the right to observe and document
police activity in public spaces in particular. See Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir.
2011); Fields v. City of Phila., 862 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir. 2017); Turner v. Lieutenant Driver,
848 F.3d 678, 688 (5th Cir. 2017); Alvarez, 679 F.3d at 597; Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1292 (10th Cir. 2022);
Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000). And because the First
Amendment “protects conduct and activities necessary for expression,” it likewise
protects “approaching” a newsworthy event in order “to carry out plaintiffs’ protected
monitoring,” Brown v. Kemp, 86 F.4th 745, 779 (7th Cir. 2023); see Jordan v. Jenkins, 73
F.4th 1162, 1170 (10th Cir. 2023).
74. Plaintiffs’ proposed course of conduct is proscribed by the Act.
75. Criminalizing peaceful, nonobstructive newsgathering advances no
legitimate government interest. See, e.g., Glik, 655 F.3d at 84 (newsgathering “that does
not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably
subject to limitation”); Alvarez, 679 F.3d at 606 (finding no substantial state interest in
restricting recording that is “not disruptive of public order or safety, and carried out by
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 17 07/22/25
Filed Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 17
people who have a legal right to be in a particular public location and to watch and
listen to what is going on around them”).
76. Because the Act’s scope is untethered from any of the interests that could
purportedly justify it, the statute is not narrowly tailored. See Sisters for Life, Inc. v.
Louisville-Jefferson Cnty., 56 F.4th 400, 405 (6th Cir. 2022) (narrow tailoring requires state
not to “burden substantially more speech than is necessary” to further interests and
show that it “seriously undertook to address” its concerns “with less intrusive tools”
(citation omitted)).
77. The Act’s 25-foot sweep is far broader than necessary to protect any
legitimate interest. See id. at 407 (finding 10-foot buffer zone around healthcare facilities
was not narrowly tailored and burdened more speech than necessary to achieve any
legitimate government interest); Glik, 655 F.3d at 80, 84 (individual filming “roughly ten
feet away” is at “a comfortable remove” from law enforcement (citation omitted)).
78. Tennessee has not demonstrated—and cannot demonstrate—that the Act
is necessary in light of other Tennessee laws that prohibit conduct that in fact obstructs
law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. See Sisters for Life, Inc., 56
F.4th at 405 (healthcare buffer zone not narrowly tailored in light of existing restriction
on obstruction, “a law whose ends and means fit snugly” with the state’s interests).
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 18 07/22/25
Filed Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 18
79. The Act fails to leave open “alternative observation opportunities,” Reed v.
Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1212 (9th Cir. 2017), when 25 feet is too great a distance for
Plaintiffs to observe, capture audio or video of events, or speak to witnesses.
80. The Act is therefore unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs’ peaceful,
nonobstructive efforts to document officers performing duties in public spaces.
COUNT III
Violation of the First Amendment (Facial Claim)
81. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs
of the Complaint.
82. On its face, the Act “restricts access to traditional public fora” and
authorizes officers to regulate a sweeping volume of First Amendment-protected
activity, including speech and newsgathering. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 476
(2014).
83. In its “inevitable effect,” the Act is a content-based restriction on
newsgathering designed to prevent members of the press and public from exercising
the right to document policing and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Sorrell v. IMS
Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 565 (2011) (citation omitted); see Brown, 86 F.4th at 782
(prohibition on “approaching” hunters triggered strict scrutiny where the law’s “only
evident purpose was to expand the statute to reach expressive activity” in light of
existing laws that “already encompassed physical interference”).
84. The Act is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 19 07/22/25
Filed Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 19
85. Whatever interest Tennessee intended to advance by enacting it, the Act
contains no standards channeling officers’ discretion toward that interest.
86. Instead, the Act “vests unbridled discretion in a government official over
whether to permit or deny expressive activity,” City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 755, and its
25-foot sweep is far broader than necessary to accommodate any legitimate interest.
87. Even if construed as a content-neutral time, place, or manner restriction or
a law that also targets conduct, the Act would still fail any degree of First Amendment
scrutiny because it “burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary” to further
the government’s interests and fails to leave open adequate alternative channels for
newsgathering. Sisters for Life, Inc., 56 F.4th at 405 (citation omitted).
88. The statute therefore violates the First Amendment on its face.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request from this Court:
1) A declaratory judgment that the Act violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs’ peaceful,
nonobstructive efforts to document officers performing duties in public spaces;
2) An injunction restraining Defendants from enforcing the Act against
Plaintiffs;
3) An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
4) Costs of suit; and
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 20 07/22/25
Filed Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 20
5) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: July 22, 2025 /s/ Paul R. McAdoo
Paul R. McAdoo
[email protected] Grayson Clary*
[email protected] REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
6688 Nolensville Rd. Suite 108-20
Brentwood, TN 37027
Phone: 615.823.3633
Fax: 202.795.9310
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
* Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Case 3:25-cv-00830 Document 1 21 07/22/25
Filed Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 21
JS 44 (Rev. 03/24) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Gannett Co., Inc., Gray Local Media, Inc., Nashville Jeff Long, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Public Media, Inc. d/b/a Nashville Banner, Nexstar Media Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security,
Group,
(b) County of Inc., Scripps
Residence of FirstMedia, INc., States
Listed Plaintiff Newsroom
New York Countyd/b/a Glenn
County ofFunk, in his
Residence official
of First Listedcapacity
Defendant as District Attorney
Tennessee Lookout,(EXCEPT INand
U.S.TEGNA
PLAINTIFF Inc.
CASES) General for Nashville and
(IN U.S. Davidson
PLAINTIFF CASES County,
ONLY) Tennessee,
and
NOTE:John Drake,
IN LAND in his
CONDEMNATION official
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
capacity
CASES, USE THEas Chief
LOCATION of
OF
Metropolitan Nashville Police Department
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Paul R. McAdoo, Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press, 1156 15th Street NW, Suite 1020, Washington,
DC 20005, (615) 823-3633
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration ✖ 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. § 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Challenge to constitutionality of Section 5 of 2025 Tenn. Laws Pub. Ch. 409 (SB 30)
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
07/22/2025 /s/ Paul R. McAdoo
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
CaseAMOUNT
3:25-cv-00830 APPLYING IFP
Document 1-1 JUDGE
Filed 07/22/25 MAG. JUDGE
Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 22
