West Virginia law shielding addresses of judges, officers is unconstitutional, court rules (updated)

Thomson Reuters

Tue 18:14

4th Circuit says law violated First Amendment and was not narrowly tailored
Statute lets judges, officials sue over disclosure of addresses, phone numbers
Other states adopted similar laws after federal judge's son was killed
Adds comment from Thomson Reuters in paragraphs 6-8
By Nate Raymond
Oct 27 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a West Virginia law barring the online publication of home addresses and unpublished phone numbers belonging to judges and law enforcement officers is unconstitutional.
The ruling by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time a federal appellate court has struck down one of the many laws states enacted safeguarding such information after a disgruntled lawyer shot and killed the son of US District Judge Esther Salas at her home in New Jersey in 2020.
The ruling came in class-action lawsuits filed by retired law enforcement officer Michael Jackson against Thomson ReutersTRI.TO, Whitepages Inc, ThryvTHRY.O, PeopleConnect and RELX'sREL.L LexisNexis alleging they violated West Virginia's Daniel’s Law by publishing home addresses and unpublished phone numbers of individuals covered by the law through their online people-search services.
     Samir Deger-Sen, a lawyer at Latham & Watkins who represented PeopleConnect and argued the appeal on behalf of all the defendants, in a statement welcomed the ruling, saying the court had affirmed that addresses and phone numbers "warrant robust protection under the First Amendment."
     "We hope the decision will encourage thoughtful deliberation among state legislatures evaluating similar legislation, particularly as they consider whether there are less restrictive means to accomplish their goals," he said.
 A spokesperson for Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters, in a statement said it "has long been committed to honoring privacy and keeping personal data safe" and believed West Virginia's law "attempts to serve a laudable goal."
 "But in its current form, the statute is overbroad and violates the First Amendment," the spokesperson said.
 Jackson's lawyer, Philip Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher, did not respond to a request for comment.
West Virginia enacted the law in 2021 after the fatal shooting of Salas' 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl, by a lawyer who went to the judge's residence after finding her home address online. Her husband was also wounded.
More than a dozen states have adopted their own versions of Daniel's Law, including Salas' home state of New Jersey, whose own measure remains subject to litigation. Congress also passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act in 2022 to similarly protect federal judges' personal information online.
West Virginia's law prohibited disclosure of covered officials' home addresses or unpublished telephone numbers without their permission and allowed lawsuits seeking at least $1,000 per violation, punitive damages, attorney fees and injunctive relief.
US District Judge Michael Urbanski dismissed Jackson’s lawsuits last year after concluding the law violated the US Constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect speech and due process rights.
The 4th Circuit agreed in Tuesday's three-judge opinion, saying the law imposed a content-based restriction on speech that was not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest of ensuring the safety of judges and law enforcement officials.
"West Virginia was fully justified in attempting to regulate such speech in light of the compelling government interest in enhancing the safety and security of certain public officials, but its efforts reached more broadly (than) necessary to accomplish the task," US Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote for the panel.
He highlighted a key distinction between West Virginia’s statute and similar laws elsewhere: It did not require officials to notify a company that information was improperly posted and request its removal before suing.
As a result, Niemeyer said, data brokers could face liability for publishing information on a broad group of people that, unbeknownst to the companies, included protected officials’ information. 
The law therefore forced companies to choose between potential liability and self-censorship, discouraging the publication of otherwise lawful information, he wrote.
"As a result, data brokers either face liability or they self-censor and do not publish such information," Neimeyer wrote.
The case is Jackson v Thomson Reuters, 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-2121.
For the plaintiff: Philip Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher
For the defense: Samir of Latham & Watkins
     
Read more:
New Jersey ruling could imperil state law aimed at protecting judges' personal data
NJ judge whose son was killed warns against weakening state data privacy laws
Litigation funder backs cases over NJ law shielding info on judges, officials
New Jersey defends privacy law shielding judges, prosecutors
     

 (Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston)