4th Circuit strikes down West Virginia law shielding judges' addresses

Summary

A federal appeals court has ruled that West Virginia's law, which aimed to protect the home addresses and unpublished phone numbers of judges and law enforcement officers, is unconstitutional. This decision by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals is significant as it marks the first time a federal appellate court has struck down a state version of Daniel's Law, which was enacted in response to a tragic incident in 2020 where a lawyer killed the son of a federal judge after finding their address online. The court found that the law imposed an overreaching content-based restriction on speech that was not adequately tailored to serve the state's interest in protecting public officials. Currently, more than a dozen states have implemented their own versions of Daniel's Law, although similar measures in other areas are still under litigation.

Tokens

$TRI$THRY$REL

Analysis

RELX: RELX is a multinational information and analytics company whose subsidiary LexisNexis was sued for publishing covered officials’ personal data. The company was part of the group of defendants that prevailed in the constitutional challenge to the state law. Thryv: Thryv is a company that provides online directory and people-search services and was named as a defendant in the class-action lawsuits. It faced claims that its publications violated West Virginia’s privacy protections for judges and officers. LexisNexis: LexisNexis is a legal and business information provider under RELX that offers people-search capabilities and was named in the lawsuits alleging violations of West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law. It was among the data services that benefited from the 4th Circuit’s ruling striking down the statute. PeopleConnect: PeopleConnect operates online people-search services and was one of the defendants sued for allegedly publishing protected addresses and phone numbers in violation of West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law. It was represented in the appeal by counsel who challenged the law’s constitutionality. West Virginia: West Virginia is a U.S. state that enacted Daniel’s Law in 2021 to prohibit the online publication of home addresses and unpublished phone numbers of judges and law enforcement officers without consent. The state’s statute was challenged in class-action lawsuits by data broker clients and was struck down as unconstitutional by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals on October 27. The ruling emphasized that the law imposed an overly broad content-based restriction on speech. Michael Jackson: Michael Jackson is a retired law enforcement officer who filed class-action lawsuits against multiple data brokers. His suits claimed the companies violated West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law by publishing protected home addresses and phone numbers. The cases resulted in the 4th Circuit’s landmark ruling on the law’s constitutionality. Philip Fraietta: Philip Fraietta is a lawyer at Bursor & Fisher who represented plaintiff Michael Jackson in the lawsuits and appeal. He advanced arguments on behalf of the class challenging the data brokers’ publication practices under the state privacy statute. Samir Deger-Sen: Samir Deger-Sen is a lawyer at Latham & Watkins who represented PeopleConnect and argued the appeal on behalf of the defendants. He contended that West Virginia’s law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing liability without prior notice requirements. Thomson Reuters: Thomson Reuters is a multinational information company and parent of Reuters that operates people-search and data services. It was named as a defendant in the lawsuits alleging violations of West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law through its online publications. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the appellate decision. Judicial Precedent: The 4th Circuit’s decision marked the first time a federal appellate court has struck down a state Daniel’s Law enacted to protect officials’ personal information. Constitutional Analysis: The court held that the law imposed a content-based restriction on speech that was not narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in protecting judges and law enforcement officers. State-Level Developments: More than a dozen states have adopted versions of Daniel’s Law, with similar measures in other jurisdictions remaining subject to ongoing litigation.

Categories

macropolitics
View Original Tweet