Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton rejected arguments that the provision's scope was limited by State v. Bagley, 474 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991), which established that other state prohibitions on hunter harassment applied only to activities that physically interfered with hunting.

Such an interpretation contradicts the plain text of Section 29.083(2)(a)(7) and legislative history, the majority said, noting that the legislative sponsor of the 2016 amendment stated that it would strengthen existing prohibitions by barring nonphysical interference with hunting.

The majority also said the plaintiffs have standing to bring their suit even though they have not been cited for violating Section 29.083(2)(a)(7), because they have offered evidence that the threat of enforcement has reasonably discouraged them from pursuing activities protected by the First Amendment.

Turning to the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, the majority said that prohibitions on approaching, confronting, or maintaining physical or visual proximity to hunters are unconstitutionally vague.

"People simply cannot know how close is too close to follow and film," the majority opinion said, noting that the law does not provide meaningful guidance on how far away an individual must remain from a hunter or who decides whether someone is too close.

The prohibitions on recording are also impermissibly overbroad because a substantial number of the law's applications are unconstitutional, according to the majority.

Finally, the majority said the law is an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction because it only targets expression that disrupts hunting activities, which is not necessary to achieve the government's asserted interests in promoting safety, educating the public or protecting the right to hunt enshrined in the state constitution.

"In Wisconsin, hunters have a constitutional right to hunt, but they do not have a right to avoid contact with people like plaintiffs who disapprove of their hunting," the majority said, pointing out that state law already prohibits physical interference with hunting.

U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas L. Kirsch dissented, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing because the Bagley ruling applies to the amendment and they have not said they intend to physically interfere with lawful hunting.

Mark M. Leitner of Laffey, Leitner & Goode LLC argued the case for the plaintiffs. Gabe Johnson-Karp of the Wisconsin Department of Justice argued the case for the state officials.