Bill expanding Tennessee law enforcement powers during protests draws pushback
Metro Nashville Police wearing riot gear during a 2020 protest in Downtown Nashville. (Photo: Alex Kent)
A GOP bill giving law enforcement expanded arrest powers during public protests and police actions is drawing pushback from civil rights and journalist groups as a potential infringement on First Amendment rights.
The multi-part bill (HB55/SB30) by Tennessee House Leader William Lamberth of Portland and Sen. Mark Pody of Lebanon — both Republicans — would allow police to order members of the media and public to remain 25 feet away from crime scenes, traffic stops and any 'ongoing and immediate threat to public safety.'
The proposed legislation would also give police added enforcement powers during public protests and demonstrations.
The bill redefines the crime of 'littering' to include the distribution of flyers with the 'intent to to unlawfully intimidate,' criminalizes the hanging of banners and signs over bridges and tunnels and allows police to make misdemeanor arrests of protestors identified through social media videos.
The bill additionally gives law enforcement the right to demand a person's name based on 'reasonable suspicion of a legal violation.'
In a letter to lawmakers Monday, more than two dozen groups representing Tennessee Muslim, Jewish, Black and immigrant groups, and civil liberties advocates, warned the legislation is 'likely to have a chilling effect' on a spectrum of communities seeking to make their voices heard in response to public policy decisions.
'We are living in a period in which constitutional rights and physical safety are at increased risk with federal workers, students, LGBTQ+ immigrant, Jewish, Muslim and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities caught in the crosshairs,' their letter noted. The 'real world impact' of the proposed legislation would infringe on the fundamental right of speech and assembly, the groups said.
There's a million-and-a-half reasons why reporters need to be in close proximity to law enforcement to do their own job. This gives police far too much discretion to shut that reporting down.
– Grayson Clary, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Media organizations have also opposed the legislation.
'As you can imagine, journalists appear within 25 feet of law enforcement officers doing their day job every day,' said Grayson Clary, staff attorney with Lawyers Committee for Freedom of the Press, which provides legal support to journalists.
'Maybe it's a crime scene, a protest, a police response to a rally when it takes a turn,' he said. 'There's a million-and-a-half reasons why reporters need to be in close proximity to law enforcement to do their own job. This gives police far too much discretion to shut that reporting down.'
Similar legislation in Indiana and Louisiana creating buffer zones between police and the public, including the media, have been preliminarily halted by federal courts, Clary noted. Both laws are currently in the federal appeals process.
Pody told lawmakers last week that the intent of a 25-foot buffer line around police is not to keep the public from observing police actions, but to protect the work of law enforcement.
'They can still be witnessed. They can still be videotaped,' Pody said. 'I think that law enforcement is not opposed to anything like that. We still want them to be held accountable…We're just saying there's a 25 foot radius if (police) are actively doing something where they need to be focused on the job.'
But Sen. London Lamar, a Memphis Democrat, noted that requiring the public to be 25 feet away could keep police actions out of view. She cited the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police – an event captured on bystander video.
'The flaw in this part (of Tennessee's bill) is it doesn't give citizens the ability to exercise their First Amendment right and catch that,' she said. 'And it opens up the door to police misconduct, and it shields them from citizens having the evidence of police misconduct.'
Republican Sen. Brent Taylor of Memphis cited 'bridge bandits, intersection imbeciles and interstate insurrectionists' disrupting roadways in his district for his support of the bill.
In response to questions from Taylor, a Tennessee Highway Patrol attorney confirmed that, should the bill become law, protestors in Memphis who appear in social media images blocking roadways and bridges could be arrested by state troopers even if Memphis police declined to make arrests.
The bill's origins lie with action taken by the Metro Nashville Council last year in response to several anti-semitic and racist demonstrations by white supremacist and neo-Nazis in downtown Nashville.
The largely Democratic council voted overwhelmingly in favor of passing four ordinances aimed at hate speech and those who promote it, including buffer zones around public buildings, a ban on highway banners and a provision banning the transport of individuals in the back of a box truck — the way some white supremacist protestors arrived in Nashville last summers.
Tennessee Republicans, Nashville mayor back antisemitism bill
Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell and others in Metro government worked with Republicans to craft the current legislation and its backers have cited the need to stem a rise in anti-semitic demonstrations.
'While addressing anti-Semitism is a shared and important concern, these bills include sweeping provisions with dangerous and far-reaching consequences that compromise free speech, public safety, and the principles of equitable justice,' said Sabina Mohyuddin, executive director of the Nashville-based American Muslim Advisory Council, which opposes the bill along with Bend the Arc Jewish Action, Latino Memphis, Nashville Jews for Justice and the NAACP Nashville branch.
'In today's political climate—where immigrant and pro-Palestinian voices are increasingly targeted—this legislation raises grave concerns,' she said.
The Tennessee Senate adopted the bill 30-2 Monday. In the House, the bill will be considered after debate over the state budget.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Republicans line up behind Trump after strike on Iran — with few detractors
Republicans on Capitol Hill quickly lined up behind President Trump after he announced that the U.S. conducted a strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities, a strong show of support for the White House with few detractors inside the GOP. Trump announced on Truth Social just before 8 p.m. EDT on Saturday that the U.S. 'completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran,' including Fordow, the nuclear site hidden in a mountain south of Tehran. He is scheduled to address the nation from the White House at 10 p.m. Republican leaders in the House and Senate backed the action, which had become a debate of sorts in Washington — especially among GOP — since Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month in what it called a 'pre-emptive' attack. Live updates: US bombs Iranian nuclear sites, Trump to address nation 'The military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote in a statement on X. 'The President gave Iran's leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement. President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision, and clarity.' 'The President's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,' he added. 'This is America First policy in action. God bless our brave men and women in uniform – the most lethal fighting force on the planet – as we pray for their safe return home. May God bless America.' Johnson was briefed on the strike beforehand, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wrote in a statement with X: 'I stand with President Trump.' 'The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing 'death to America' and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs' misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped,' he said. 'As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), similarly, backed Trump after the strike and applauded him for making the 'right call.' 'Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans,' Cotton wrote on X. 'As I have said multiple times recently, I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point,' Crawford echoed in a statement. 'That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line — articulated by President of both parties for decades — was real. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are making it clear that the world would never accept Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.' While the majority of Republicans backed Trump in the wake of the strike, there were some GOP detractors on Capitol Hill. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has been advocating for the U.S. to avoid intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict, wrote on X minutes after Trump announced the offensive: 'This is not Constitutional.' Massie helped lead a bipartisan war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Middle East dispute. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) suggested that the move was unconstitutional. 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional. I look forward to his remarks tonight,' he wrote on X. Trump's decision to strike a trio of Iranian nuclear sites came after a week of debate on Capitol Hill over whether the U.S. should take action in Iran after Israel launched an attack on Iran, prompting a back-and-forth between the two countries. Trump on Thursday said he would decide whether to take action within the next two weeks. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' Trump said in the statement read by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The big question had been whether the U.S. would deploy a large bomb known as a 'bunker buster' to strike the Fordow facility, which is underground. While some lawmakers advocated for the move, others — including some of the president's most vocal supporters on the right-flank — pushed against the U.S. directly getting involved in the conflict. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, said 'Me and my district support President Trump and his MAGA agenda, it's what we voted for in November, and foreign wars weren't a part of it.' On Saturday night, she offered prayers for the safety of U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East. 'Let us pray that we are not attacked by terrorists on our homeland after our border was open for the past 4 years and over 2 Million gotaways came in.🙏 Let us pray for peace. 🙏,' she added. But across the GOP conferences on Capitol Hill, Republicans were quick to back the move by the president. 'Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate —and correct— decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime,' Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) wrote in a statement on X. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You're the best!' House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the No. 3 House Republican, said Trump 'was right then, and he is right today: NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE.' 'A nuclear Iran posed a threat to the Middle East and to the world. @POTUS has been consistent that this dangerous regime should NEVER possess a nuclear weapon,' he added in a statement on X. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mahmoud Khalil describes pain of missing son's birth in latest court filing
Mahmoud Khalil, the detained Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist, has said in a new court filing that the 'most immediate and visceral harms' he has experienced during his nearly three-month detention have been missing the birth of his son and being separated from his wife. 'Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' Khalil said. 'I listened to her pain, trying to comfort her while 70 other men slept around me. When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep. 'To not be able to see them, hold them, speak with them freely, enjoy everything I imagined our first days as a family would be like, is devastating,' he wrote about the birth in late April. The declaration, filed on Wednesday night and made public on Thursday, is part of new evidence submitted by Khalil's legal team in New Jersey federal court in support of his request for a preliminary injunction requesting his immediate release. Related: Mahmoud Khalil finally allowed to hold one-month-old son for the first time It comes a week after a US district judge said in a lengthy order that the use by the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, of a rarely invoked law to detain and attempt to deport Khalil was probably unconstitutional. The judge wrote that the government's justification for deporting Khalil – that his beliefs may pose a threat to US foreign policy – could lead to vague and arbitrary enforcement. The judge, however, stopped short of ordering Khalil's release, and requested additional information before ruling further. On Wednesday night, Khalil's legal team filed a brief and dozens of declarations and expert reports describing the 'irreparable harm' they say that Khalil 'and others will continue to suffer as long as he remains illegally detained in Louisiana and until and unless the Rubio Determination is overturned'. His attorneys argue that Khalil's arrest and detention is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to suppress constitutionally protected speech and are challenging Rubio's determination. In a letter to the court made public on Thursday, Khalil's attorneys write that Khalil is suffering 'irreparable harm from his arrest and detention' including the 'loss of Mr Khalil's liberty; the chilling of his First Amendment protected activities; the separation from his family, particularly his wife and newborn child; and psychological harm specific to his arrest and detention'. They also accuse the government of damaging Khalil's reputation 'by baselessly identifying him as a risk to the foreign policy of the United States, marking him and his family as targets for harassment and notoriety and severely undermining his ability to pursue a career in international diplomacy and human rights advocacy'. In Khalil's declaration, he says that the harms he has suffered as a result of the government's actions include 'dignitary and reputational harm, personal and familial hardship, including constant fear for personal safety, continued detention, restrictions on my freedom of expression, and severe damage to my professional future'. At a news conference on Thursday, Veronica Salama, a staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union who is working on Khalil's case, said that Khalil's declaration was the 'first time' that Khalil 'is speaking directly to the court about the harms that he is facing'. She noted that before his arrest, Khalil had accepted a position at Oxfam International, but that the offer was rescinded on 3 April – a decision she said was a 'direct result' of the government's accusations against him and the public stigma that has followed. Other filings on Wednesday night included letters from attorneys, a declaration from Khalil's wife, Dr Noor Ramez Abdalla, as well as declarations from students and professors at Columbia University, a former state department official, legal service providers and more. Abdalla wrote that the end of her pregnancy and labor 'was extremely stressful because I was separated from Mahmoud due to his ongoing detention. 'Though I had immense support from family and friends in those early days, nothing could replace Mahmoud's presence,' she said. 'Those are days our little family will never get back. Mahmoud will never be part of bringing our first baby home from the hospital, awkwardly carrying the baby carrier, and figuring out how to hold such a tiny baby, and all of the other fun, hard, and challenging parts of adjusting to having a newborn. This reality of all we have missed and will never get back is a weight that constantly sits on me.' Related: To my newborn son: I am absent not out of apathy, but conviction | Mahmoud Khalil The ACLU said on Thursday that Khalil was 'still waiting for a full and final ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, in addition to his pending motions for release on bail and for him to be returned to New Jersey'. The new filings and the news conference on Thursday came a day after Khalil's case was raised during the New York City Democratic mayoral primary debate. The former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, the current frontrunner, called Khalil's detention 'a continuation of Trump eroding democracy, chipping away at due process'. Khalil, Cuomo said, 'should be released, he should be released immediately' adding: 'He shouldn't have been detained in the first place.' The Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, who is polling in second place, said that Khalil 'should be set free', adding that Khalil 'should be at home with his wife Noor and their young child'.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP's Iran hawks hit the airwaves to support Trump's Saturday strike
Two of the Senate GOP's top Iran hawks — South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton — passionately defended President Donald Trump's Saturday strikes on key Iranian nuclear infrastructure as the White House looks ahead to Tehran's response. Speaking with NBC's Kristen Welker on Sunday, Graham, who has long advocated forcefully targeting the country's nuclear capability, pushed back on the view that an assault on Iran would bear similarities to America's long, difficult war in Iraq. "The country is in the hands of religious Nazis," Graham said of Iran on "Meet the Press." "They want to kill at the Jews. And they're coming after us. And they were set back. And to Steve Bannon and all those people, Iran is different. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Ayatollah is a nightmare for the world." Republicans largely sided with the President after he announced the attacks on nuclear sites Natanz, Fordo (also known as Fordow) and Esfahan on Saturday. Even some with isolationist tendencies, Vice President JD Vance among them, are supporting the idea of targeted strikes as a means to return to the negotiating table. But some Democrats, and a handful of Republicans, say that Trump didn't have the constitutional authority to launch the attack, and that he should have sought approval from Congress. "We can't be the commander-in-chief," Graham told Welker. "You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs. If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding. But declaring war is left to the Congress. We've declared war five times in the history of America. All of these other military operations were lawful. He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution." Speaking with ABC's Jonathan Karl on Sunday, Cotton insisted the White House still holds the leverage ahead of any diplomatic talks or military escalation. "We haven't targeted the supreme leader; we haven't targeted their energy infrastructure," he said on "This Week." "We haven't targeted other critical infrastructure. That's an implicit message that Iran still has things that they hold dear that neither the United States nor Israel has struck. Iran needs to heed President Trump's warning."