West Virginia passed a law in 2021 after a federal judge’s son was murdered; five years later a US appeals court struck down its ban on publishing judges’ and police officers’ home addresses without a notice safeguard

A federal appeals court in the United States has struck down a West Virginia privacy law. The law banned the publication of home addresses and personal details of judges, police officers and public officials. The court ruled that the law breaks the First Amendment of the US Constitution. A three-judge panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, made the decision. It backed a lower district court ruling. That ruling found the state law placed an unconstitutional limit on the free flow of truthful, publicly available information. West Virginia lawmakers first passed the measure in 2021. They joined several other American states in passing laws known together as Daniel’s Law. The push across the country followed a tragedy in New Jersey in July 2020. Daniel Anderl, the 20-year-old son of US District Judge Esther Salas, was shot dead at the family home. The attacker was an angry attorney who had found the judge’s home address online. The appeals court agreed that the state has a strong interest in protecting public servants and their families from physical harm and harassment. But it said West Virginia’s law went too far. It made it a crime, and set penalties, for sharing address data. It did not include needed safeguards or a written notice requirement.

Statutory flaws and First Amendment conflicts

Circuit Judge Steven Agee wrote for the panel. He noted that state governments have a real duty to protect judges and police. But he said any law meant to do that must be narrowly written so it does not limit speech the Constitution protects. “This decision does not place information businesses beyond legitimate privacy regulation,” the court noted. It added that the outcome only restates that governments must respect First Amendment rights, even when they pursue the most compelling goals. Trade groups from the technology and data industries brought the lawsuit, including the Software and Information Industry Association. The plaintiffs argued that the West Virginia law put broad legal risk on data aggregators, news outlets and groups that compile public records. They said it gave affected people no first notice and no way to opt out. Under the West Virginia law that was struck down, a person could be sued and face set damages for showing or publishing covered personal information online. This applied even if the individual had never sent a written request to remove their details. Lawyers for the industry trade groups argued during oral arguments that without a required notice step, businesses and journalists faced strict liability. They said this covered the routine publishing or sharing of public records, such as property deeds, voter registrations and court filings, which naturally include address information.

Differences across state privacy statutes

The 4th Circuit panel pointed out that West Virginia’s law was very different from similar privacy laws in other places, such as New Jersey. In New Jersey, the state Supreme Court upheld its version of Daniel’s Law. It found that legal liability began only after a person sent a formal written request asking that their personal information be taken down from public websites. By contrast, the West Virginia law did not have a standard rule that covered officials must first give notice to publishers or data handlers before liability or penalties could be sought. The federal panel decided this missing safeguard made the ban on speech too broad. It said the law chilled the routine publication of public records by news organisations, legal research services and commercial data brokers. Circuit Judges Pamela Harris and Steven Agee, along with their panel colleague, concluded that the law was subject to strict constitutional review. They said this was because it regulated content based on who was named and what type of data was involved. The court found that West Virginia failed to show that a less restrictive option, such as a notice-and-takedown process, would not work to protect judges.

Broader legal implications for data privacy

The ruling sets an important legal precedent in the ongoing clash between privacy protections for public officials and free speech protections for businesses and media groups in the United States. In recent years, dozens of states have considered or passed versions of Daniel’s Law. These laws aim to protect judges, prosecutors, police officers and corrections staff from targeted violence and doxxing. Industry groups welcomed the appeals court ruling. They said physical safety is the top concern, but state legislatures cannot broadly limit access to public records or penalise information businesses without clear notice rules. West Virginia state officials have not yet said whether they plan to appeal the 4th Circuit decision to the United States Supreme Court. They have also not said whether they will ask the full appeals court to rehear the case. Legal experts expect that West Virginia lawmakers may have to rewrite the law to include clear written notice and takedown rules if they want it to meet federal constitutional standards.