4th Circuit strikes down West Virginia law on disclosing judges' and police addresses
A three-judge 4th Circuit panel ruled that West Virginia's 2021 Daniel's Law, which barred disclosing officials' home addresses and phone numbers, violates the First Amendment. The panel said a narrower notice-and-takedown law might pass.
1 / 1
The story, neutrally told
Mixed · 2A three-judge panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on 27 October 2026 that West Virginia's version of Daniel's Law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, agreeing with a lower district court. ReasonRC “we agree that the provision of West Virginia's Daniel's Law at issue here … violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Read at Reason ↗ The Times of IndiaN “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.” Read at The Times of India ↗ Right · 1The case is Jackson v. Thomson Reuters Am. Corp. The law bars anyone from disclosing the home addresses or unpublished telephone numbers of current, former or retired judicial officers, prosecutors, public defenders and law-enforcement officers when a reasonable person would believe the disclosure risks harassment or harm. It lets those people sue for damages. ReasonRC “From today's opinion in Jackson v. Thomson Reuters Am. Corp.”“The law authorizes protected persons to bring a civil action for damages….” Read at Reason ↗ Centre · 1Daniel's Laws are named for Daniel Anderl, the 20-year-old son of US District Judge Esther Salas, who was shot dead at the family home in New Jersey in July 2020 by an attorney who had found the judge's address online. West Virginia passed its law in 2021. The Times of IndiaN “Daniel Anderl, the 20-year-old son of US District Judge Esther Salas, was shot dead at the family home.”“West Virginia lawmakers first passed the measure in 2021.” Read at The Times of India ↗
Mixed · 2The court held that disclosing addresses and phone numbers is protected speech, not just regulated data, and that the law is content-based because it turns on who is named and what information is disclosed. That meant strict scrutiny applied, and the court rejected the argument that the speech was commercial and so got lesser protection. ReasonRC “the Supreme Court has clearly held that the scope of "speech" regulated by the First Amendment is broader and includes data”“a disclosure that a grocery store clerk lives at 100 Main Street is permitted, while a disclosure that a police officer lives at 100 Main Street is prohibited.” Read at Reason ↗ The Times of IndiaN “it regulated content based on who was named and what type of data was involved.” Read at The Times of India ↗ Mixed · 2The parties and the court agreed that protecting the safety of judges and police is a compelling government interest. The court nonetheless found the law was not the least restrictive means of serving it. ReasonRC “parties agree, as do we, that the law's purpose of enhancing the safety” Read at Reason ↗ The Times of IndiaN “The appeals court agreed that the state has a strong interest in protecting public servants and their families from physical harm and harassment.” Read at The Times of India ↗ Mixed · 2The main flaw was that liability arises immediately on disclosure, with no requirement that the covered person first notify the publisher and ask for removal, and without any requirement that the discloser knew the information concerned a covered person. The opinion said this would push data brokers and others to self-censor, for example when publishing a directory built from public land records. ReasonRC “imposes liability on a data broker immediately upon its disclosure of addresses and telephone numbers, regardless of whether the data broker had knowledge that the information related to Covered Persons.” Read at Reason ↗ The Times of IndiaN “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.” Read at The Times of India ↗
Mixed · 2The panel contrasted West Virginia's law with versions elsewhere, such as New Jersey's, where liability begins only after a written takedown request and which the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld. Reason's headline and lede say the court suggested a narrower notice-and-takedown law may be constitutional, and the Times of India says West Virginia failed to show such an option would not work. The Times of IndiaN “In New Jersey, the state Supreme Court upheld its version of Daniel’s Law.”“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.” Read at The Times of India ↗ ReasonRC “the court suggests that a narrower law, which only requires removal and nondisclosure after the plaintiff makes a specific demand, may be constitutional.” Read at Reason ↗ Centre · 1According to the Times of India, technology and data industry trade groups, including the Software and Information Industry Association, brought the suit and welcomed the ruling. As of its report, West Virginia officials had not said whether they would seek rehearing en banc or Supreme Court review, and the paper cites legal experts who expect lawmakers may have to rewrite the law. The Times of IndiaN “Trade groups from the technology and data industries brought the lawsuit, including the Software and Information Industry Association.”“West Virginia state officials have not yet said whether they plan to appeal the 4th Circuit decision to the United States Supreme Court.” Read at The Times of India ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left0 outlets
No left outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
Centre1 outlet
- Framing
- The Times of India gives a general-audience news summary stressing the ruling's effect on privacy protections for officials and the free flow of public information.
- Emphasis
- The Anderl murder, the trade-group plaintiffs, the New Jersey comparison, industry reaction, and whether West Virginia will appeal.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Gives less of the court's doctrinal reasoning, and names a different opinion author from Reason.
- Charged language
- “doxxing”
- For example
-
“These laws aim to protect judges, prosecutors, police officers and corrections staff from targeted violence and doxxing.” — The Times of India
“Industry groups welcomed the appeals court ruling.” — The Times of India
Right1 outlet
- Framing
- Reason's Volokh blog post reproduces long extracts of the opinion and explains its First Amendment reasoning, with the headline stressing that a narrower law might survive.
- Emphasis
- Legal doctrine: data as speech, content-based restriction, strict scrutiny, lack of a knowledge requirement, and the chilling effect on speakers.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Says little about the plaintiffs' identity or the reaction of industry groups and West Virginia officials.
- For example
-
“the court suggests that a narrower law, which only requires removal and nondisclosure after the plaintiff makes a specific demand, may be constitutional.” — Reason
“Because of the high value that our Constitution and longstanding practices place on the free dissemination of information” — Reason
What every side reports
- The 4th Circuit struck down West Virginia's Daniel's Law provision as violating the First Amendment, upholding the lower court.
- The panel accepted that protecting judges and police is a compelling interest.
- The law was faulted for lacking a notice-and-takedown step that other states' versions include.
- Judges Agee and Harris sat on the panel.
Where accounts differ
-
Which judge wrote the opinion
- Centre
- The Times of India says Circuit Judge Steven Agee wrote for the panel.
- Right
- Reason (Eugene Volokh) says the opinion is by Judge Paul Niemeyer, joined by Judges Steven Agee and Pamela Harris.
West Virginia place
West Virginia enacted the law in 2021 to protect officials; the court found its aims legitimate but its means too broad. State officials had not said whether they would appeal.
“West Virginia was fully justified in attempting to regulate such speech in light of the compelling government interest” — Reason
“West Virginia state officials have not yet said whether they plan to appeal the 4th Circuit decision to the United States Supreme Court.” — The Times of India
First Amendment topic
The court treated the disclosure of addresses and phone numbers as protected speech, so any restriction must be narrowly tailored.
“involve the regulation of speech protected by the First Amendment” — Reason
Left0 articles
No coverage yet.
Centre1 article
-
A US court voided a 2021 West Virginia law banning judicial address leaks for lacking safety notices
Neutral Plain news summary of the ruling, its background in the Anderl killing, industry reaction and open questions on appeal.
Right1 article
-
ReasonRC ·
Neutral Legal-blog presentation of the opinion's reasoning in extended quotation, noting that a narrower law may be constitutional.
- 27 Oct 16:38 First ReasonRC W. Va. Law Restricting Disclosing Home Addresses and Phone Numbers of Judges and Police Struck Down, but …
- 28 Oct 13:42 +21h 4m The Times of IndiaN A US court voided a 2021 West Virginia law banning judicial address leaks for lacking safety notices
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.
Ask about this story
Loading…