Federal Appeals Court to Hear First Amendment Challenge to Law Shielding Judges' Home Addresses

On August 12, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous 5-0 decision that data brokers and publishers can be held strictly liable for displaying the home addresses of judges and police officers, regardless of whether the disclosure was intentional or accidental. The ruling resolves a critical question of statutory interpretation, clearing a procedural hurdle that had temporarily stalled a major constitutional challenge. The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which is tasked with determining whether the state's sweeping judicial privacy statute—known as Daniel's Law—violates the First Amendment by penalizing the publication of truthful information.[1][4]

The New Jersey legislature enacted Daniel's Law in 2020 in the wake of a targeted assassination attempt that shocked the federal judiciary. The law was named after Daniel Anderl, the 20-year-old son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. A disgruntled attorney, who had located the judge's home address through online public records, arrived at her North Brunswick residence disguised as a delivery driver and opened fire, killing Anderl and severely wounding the judge's husband. In response, the statute allows covered public officials—including judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers—to request the removal of their personal information from the internet. If a company fails to scrub the data within 10 days of receiving a takedown notice, it faces a mandatory $1,000 penalty per violation.[1][2]

In recent years, an amendment allowing covered individuals to assign their claims to third parties has spawned a massive wave of litigation. A single entity, Atlas Data Privacy Corp., has filed hundreds of lawsuits on behalf of tens of thousands of police officers and judicial officials against data brokers, real estate platforms, and media companies. Because the statutory damages are calculated per violation, companies like Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis are facing potential liabilities that stretch into the billions of dollars. The sheer scale of the financial risk has forced the data industry to aggressively challenge the law's constitutionality in federal court.[1][4]

The defendants argue that Daniel's Law acts as an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny. They contend that the First Amendment protects the publication of truthful, lawfully obtained public records, and that the state cannot broadly ban the dissemination of this data without violating fundamental free speech rights. Media organizations and civil liberties groups have warned that the law imposes a severe chilling effect on watchdog journalism, as reporters and academic researchers rely heavily on public property records and data aggregators to investigate corruption, track political spending, and monitor government officials.[1][6]

The Third Circuit had previously paused its review of the constitutional challenge to ask the New Jersey Supreme Court a certified question regarding the mechanics of the law: Does the statute require a plaintiff to prove a defendant's "mens rea"—a guilty mind or wrongful intent—in order to collect actual damages? In the August 12 opinion authored by Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis, the state high court answered in the negative. The court ruled that the statute imposes strict liability for actual damages once the 10-day takedown window expires, meaning a company is liable even if the failure to remove the data was the result of a technical glitch or an administrative oversight.[2][3][4]

By confirming that the law penalizes publishers regardless of their intent, the state court's ruling tees up a high-stakes First Amendment test at the federal appellate level. Data brokers argue that imposing strict liability on the publication of truthful information makes the law even more constitutionally suspect. They assert that without a requirement to prove malicious intent or reckless disregard, the statute forces platforms to preemptively censor vast amounts of public data to avoid ruinous financial penalties, effectively functioning as a prior restraint on lawful speech.[2][3][6]

The Third Circuit's impending decision will have profound ripple effects across the country, as the conflict between judicial security and press freedom intensifies. Following the passage of the federal Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act in 2022, several states enacted their own localized versions of Daniel's Law to shield public servants from doxing. However, these statutes are facing mounting legal headwinds. In August 2025, a federal judge struck down West Virginia's equivalent statute on First Amendment grounds, ruling that it was not narrowly tailored—a decision that is currently being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[5][7]

With the state law question now resolved, the Third Circuit will resume its review of the facial challenge to the New Jersey statute. The federal appellate court must weigh the government's compelling interest in protecting the lives of judges and police officers against the constitutional imperative to maintain a free and open press. If the court strikes down the law, it could dismantle the primary legal mechanism that states have deployed to shield public servants from targeted violence in the digital age, forcing lawmakers to find new, narrower ways to balance safety and transparency.[1][3][6]