U.S. Court of Appeals deems Wisconsin’s hunter harassment law vague and overly broad, violating the First Amendment rights of plaintiffs.
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has declared Wisconsin’s “hunter harassment law” unconstitutional, stating that it infringes upon the First Amendment rights of individuals. The law, which was amended in 2016, criminalized intentional interference with hunters. However, the court found that the law’s language was vague and overly broad, leading to potential chilling effects on constitutionally protected activities. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs associated with Wolf Patrol, an organization that monitors and documents hunting activities to ensure compliance with state regulations.
Monitoring and Documenting Hunting Activities on Public Lands
The plaintiffs, members of Wolf Patrol, actively monitor and document hunting activities on public lands throughout Wisconsin. Their goal is to ensure that hunters adhere to state regulations and to oppose hunting as an activity. Following the amendment of the hunter harassment law, the plaintiffs faced numerous encounters with hunters and law enforcement officers. These encounters included repeated stops for questioning and harassment by hunters. The plaintiffs engaged in activities such as photographing and filming hunting activities, all of which took place on public lands where both hunters and plaintiffs had the legal right to be present.
Confrontation and Seizure of Filming Equipment
One particularly significant incident involved a large group of hunters surrounding the plaintiffs with their trucks, effectively barricading them in. Law enforcement was called, and during the confrontation, the hunters berated the Wolf Patrol members, using foul language and making threats of physical harm. In a disturbing turn of events, a hunter intentionally bumped a member of the Wolf Patrol multiple times with his pickup truck. Law enforcement arrived and questioned one of the plaintiffs, Brown, regarding his filming activities. Believing that Brown may have recorded the altercation, deputies seized all of his filming equipment, including cameras, memory cards, and a cellphone.
Unconstitutional Vagueness and Overbreadth
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in July 2017, challenging the constitutionality of the amended law. They argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, leading to a chilling effect on their First Amendment rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, but the plaintiffs appealed to the 7th Circuit.
In its ruling, the 7th Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the law was indeed vague and overbroad. The provisions prohibiting “maintaining a physical proximity” and “approaching or confronting” were deemed overly broad and lacking in reasonable constraints on enforcement officials. These provisions failed to provide reasonable notice regarding what conduct was considered criminal, resulting in a chilling effect on constitutionally protected activities.
The section of the law that prohibited photographing or videotaping was not found to be vague, as it clearly outlined what was prohibited. However, the court deemed this provision overly broad, as it encompassed permissible activity, such as recording in public areas. The court concluded that this provision was primarily intended to suppress First Amendment activities and specifically targeted recordings critical of hunting. This viewpoint discrimination rendered the provision unconstitutional.
Conclusion: The 7th Circuit’s ruling declaring Wisconsin’s hunter harassment law unconstitutional is a significant victory for First Amendment rights. The court’s decision highlights the importance of clear and narrowly tailored laws that do not infringe upon individuals’ constitutional rights. This ruling serves as a reminder that the protection of free speech and expression is paramount, even in the context of contentious issues such as hunting. The case sets a precedent for the careful crafting of laws that balance the interests of different groups while upholding fundamental constitutional principles.
Leave a Reply