U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit deems Wisconsin’s controversial law as vague and overly broad, violating First Amendment rights.
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has declared Wisconsin’s “hunter harassment law” unconstitutional. The law, which was amended in 2016, aimed to criminalize intentional interference with hunters, including actions such as maintaining proximity, confronting, and recording hunting activities. However, the court found that the law was vague, overly broad, and violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The case centered around the activities of Wolf Patrol, an organization that monitors and documents hunting activities on public lands in Wisconsin to ensure compliance with state regulations. This ruling has sparked a debate about the balance between protecting hunters’ rights and safeguarding free speech.
Wolf Patrol’s Encounters Expose Flaws in the Law
The plaintiffs in the case, associated with Wolf Patrol, experienced multiple encounters with hunters and law enforcement officers following the amendment of the law. These encounters included repeated stops and questioning by law enforcement, as well as harassment by hunters. In one particularly significant incident, a large group of hunters surrounded the plaintiffs, barricading them with their trucks while law enforcement was called. The hunters proceeded to verbally abuse and threaten the Wolf Patrol members, with one hunter even using his truck to bump into a member multiple times. Law enforcement was eventually called, and the plaintiffs’ filming equipment and footage were seized.
Seizure of Filming Equipment Raises Concerns
During the confrontation, law enforcement seized all of the plaintiffs’ filming equipment, including cameras, memory cards, microphones, and a cellphone. The deputies claimed that they were seeking evidence related to potential violations of the hunter harassment law. Twelve days later, a warrant was obtained to search the seized devices and view the footage. However, the district attorney ultimately declined to bring charges, and the equipment and recordings were returned to the plaintiffs approximately seven months later. This incident raised questions about the extent of law enforcement’s power and the potential infringement on individuals’ First Amendment rights.
Lawsuit Challenges the Constitutionality of the Amendment
In July 2017, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the amended law. They argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and chilled their exercise of First Amendment rights. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the defendants, but the plaintiffs appealed to the 7th Circuit.
7th Circuit Rules in Favor of Plaintiffs
After careful consideration, the 7th Circuit concluded that the amendment was both vague and overly broad. The provisions prohibiting “maintaining a physical proximity” and “approaching or confronting” were found to lack reasonable constraints on enforcement officials and failed to provide reasonable notice of what conduct was criminal. These provisions had a significant chilling effect on constitutionally protected activity, according to the court. Additionally, the section of the amendment that prohibited photographing or videotaping was deemed overly broad as it encompassed permissible activity in public areas. The court also noted that this section specifically targeted recording activities critical of hunting, constituting unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Conclusion:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s ruling on Wisconsin’s “hunter harassment law” marks a significant victory for the plaintiffs and their First Amendment rights. The court’s decision to declare the law unconstitutional due to its vagueness and overbreadth highlights the importance of protecting free speech while also considering the rights of hunters. This case serves as a reminder that laws must be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on individuals’ constitutional rights, and that the balance between protecting different interests can be complex. As the debate continues, it remains crucial to find a middle ground that respects both the rights of hunters and the freedom of expression.
Leave a Reply