A federal judge seems poised to restrict how members of the Memphis Safe Task Force use a Tennessee law to keep onlookers at a distance, but it is not clear what those restrictions could be.
U.S. District Court Judge Mark S. Norris for the Western District of Tennessee, during a Sept. 23 hearing, repeatedly said he would not want his comments to be construed as indicative of how he would rule. But he frequently followed those remarks by questioning how he would create a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction.
"There are a number of troublesome incidents that have surfaced here," Norris said of allegations that President Donald Trump's Task Force was retaliating against community activists who routinely filmed Task Force activities. Norris also
asked if the two opposing sides of the lawsuit could discuss how a preliminary injunction could work.
Norris was appointed to the federal bench by Trump in 2018, during the president's first term.
In May this year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Memphis Safe Task Force, accusing it of violating activists' First Amendment rights to film and gather information about law enforcement activities through the use of Tennessee's Halo Law.
The Halo Law requires onlookers to be at least 25 feet away from law enforcement when an officer invokes it. According to the ACLU, Task Force agents have used the law as a "moving wall" to prevent activists from filming what they are doing. In doing so, the ACLU alleged the Halo Law forces onlookers well beyond the law's 25-foot perimeter.
The lawsuit also alleges retaliation — instances of Task Force members tailing activists, sitting outside of their homes, filming those activists, and intimidating them through threats of arrest — by the Task Force against people who film them routinely.
Much of the hearing focused on arguments about whether there is a First Amendment right to film law enforcement, whether or not the activists were breaking the law by refusing to back away well over 25 feet from a crime scene, and if the activists had standing to bring the lawsuit.
Standing is an important aspect of the case because, without standing, the lawsuit would be dismissed even if the allegations of First Amendment violations and retaliation were valid. Norris, at the outset of the hearing, emphasized the district court's responsibility to vet the plaintiffs' standing, quoting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
At the end of the hearing, Norris said he would rule at a later date, but did not say when that ruling would be made. Attorneys for the ACLU requested a scheduling conference be set in the next six to eight weeks, suggesting they may want to expedite the lawsuit.
But an attorney from the U.S. Attorney's Office implied the government may want to slow things down.
That same attorney for the federal government, at the end of the hearing, requested Norris issue an immediate stay on the preliminary injunction's effectiveness if he were to issue one. A stay is generally issued when someone appeals a ruling, and the government's attorney requested one while her office deliberated on a potential appeal.
Norris set a date for Oct. 30 when attorneys can update him on the status of the case.
Lucas Finton covers crime, policing, jails, the courts and criminal justice policy for The Commercial Appeal. He can be reached by phone or email: (901)208-3922 and Lucas.Finton@commercialappeal.com, and followed on X @LucasFinton.
This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Federal judge may rule against Memphis Safe Task Force use of TN Halo Law
