TOPEKA, KS — A new Kansas law known as the Halo Act is now in force, making it a misdemeanor for civilians to come within 25 feet of local or federal officers who are carrying out their duties. The measure has quickly drawn criticism from free-speech advocates, who say it threatens the public’s right to observe and record law enforcement activity.
The law took effect July 1 after the Republican-led Legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto. It applies to situations involving officers such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and it requires a warning before anyone can be charged for failing to move back.
Under the law, a person who refuses to step away after being told to do so can be charged with a class B misdemeanor. That offense carries a possible fine of up to $1,000 and as much as six months in jail.
How the 25-foot buffer zone works for officers and bystanders
The Halo Act says a civilian cannot approach local or federal law enforcement while the officer is engaged in official duties. Officers must first direct the person to back up to create the 25-foot space.
If the civilian does not comply, the law allows an arrest and prosecution. Supporters have framed that buffer as a safety measure for officers, bystanders and people in the area during enforcement operations.
Opponents, however, say the practical effect will be to keep people farther away from police activity than necessary and make it harder to document what is happening. The Kansas ACLU warned in a social media post last week that bystanders would only be able to record law enforcement interactions outside the 25-foot zone.
That restriction has become a central point of criticism as federal immigration enforcement has drawn more attention in Kansas and other states. Advocates argue the law gives officers too much control over who can stand nearby and how public encounters are witnessed.
Press and civil liberties groups say the law threatens recordings of police encounters
Emily Bradbury, executive director of the Kansas Press Association, said the organization believes the law is unconstitutional and expects it to invite litigation. She said Kansas already has laws that make it illegal to interfere with law enforcement.
Bradbury told ABC News on Wednesday that taxpayers could end up paying the price if the law is challenged in court. The press association says it testified multiple times during the legislative process and argued that the state did not need a new crime to address interference.
Free-speech advocates made similar objections during debate over the bill last year and this year. Their argument centers on the First Amendment and the right to observe public officials, especially when those officials are acting in public view.
The Kansas ACLU has also focused on the impact on recording. It says the law leaves no room for bystanders to stay close enough to document encounters if they are ordered back under the 25-foot rule.
Kelly vetoed the bill over legal and constitutional concerns
Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the legislation in April, saying it raised serious legal questions. In her veto statement, she said the measure created tension between law enforcement operations and Kansans’ First Amendment rights.
Kelly also argued that federal law already makes it a crime to interfere with federal officers, so Kansas did not need to create a separate state offense for the same conduct. Her veto warning centered on legal duplication and constitutional exposure.
The Republican-controlled Legislature overrode her veto a few weeks later along party lines. That move put the law on the books despite the governor’s objections and set up the current legal and political fight around the measure.
Supporters inside the Legislature said the law was needed to protect officers during operations. They argued that a clear buffer zone would reduce the risk of interference and make police work safer.
Ty Masterson tied the bill to immigration protests and ICE clashes
Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, a Republican running in the party’s governor primary, backed the measure and criticized Kelly’s veto. In a social media post after the override, he called the governor’s action dangerous.
Masterson has repeatedly pointed to protests against ICE in Minnesota as the reason for the legislation. In his April post, he said the bill would stop radical protesters from interfering with law enforcement and would keep officers and bystanders safe.
He also wrote that “Minneapolis will not be coming to Kansas,” a reference to the protests and confrontations that influenced debate over the bill. His comments linked the Kansas measure to wider tensions over immigration enforcement and demonstrations elsewhere.
Those remarks helped make the law part of a broader national argument over how far states can go in protecting officers while still preserving public observation of police action.
Critics point to Minneapolis deaths and ongoing federal investigations
The debate intensified after two civilians were killed by federal agents while protesting ICE operations in Minneapolis in January. Nearby bystanders filmed both killings, and those recordings became part of the public conversation over transparency and police accountability.
The Department of Homeland Security said one of the agents acted in self-defense after Renee Good allegedly tried to ram them with her car in what the agency called domestic terrorism. Local and state officials disputed that account.
Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem initially said Alex Pretti, a licensed gun owner, had committed an act of domestic terrorism when he was shot. She later walked back those comments, saying the situation was fluid, and declined to apologize to Pretti’s family during March congressional testimony.
No charges have been filed in either death, and the investigations remain open. Kansas opponents say those cases show why people should be able to watch and record law enforcement activity without being pushed back by a new state buffer zone.
Opponents in Kansas are weighing legal challenges
Even though the Halo Act is already in effect, the fight over it is not over. Bradbury said the Kansas Press Association is exploring all options to challenge what it calls a troublesome law.
The Kansas ACLU has also signaled concern, especially as reports of increased ICE activity continue to circulate in the state. The group says Kansans should understand their rights when observing officers in public.
The law now places Kansas in the middle of a broader national debate over policing, immigration enforcement and the public’s ability to document official conduct. Supporters say it is about safety and order. Critics say it crosses a constitutional line.
For now, the 25-foot rule stands, and any civilian who refuses to step back after a warning risks misdemeanor charges, a fine or jail time. That makes the measure one of the most closely watched state laws in the country for how it could affect both law enforcement encounters and public recording rights.
