New Jersey defends privacy law shielding judges, prosecutors
Adds comment from Thomson Reuters in paragraphs 9-10
By Nate Raymond
Aug 6 (Reuters) -New Jersey's attorney general is urging a federal judge to reject a bid by scores of businesses to have a new law barring the disclosure of home addresses and other personal information belonging to judges and prosecutors declared unconstitutional.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin's office in a Monday brief argued the disclosure restrictions served to protect public safety and did not run afoul of the companies' free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment.
"The law achieves that important public-safety goal, and reflects the venerable tradition of safety and privacy in one's home, in well-tailored ways," the state's lawyers told U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle in Camden.
The measure, known as Daniel's Law, was signed into law in 2020 by Democratic Governor Phil Murphy in response to the fatal shooting of the 20-year-old son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas at her New Jersey home by a disgruntled lawyer.
The law, which has since been expanded, allows current and former judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, and other officials to request that private entities not disclose their home addresses or unpublished home phone numbers.
Companies that do not comply with an official's request to not disclose their information can be sued for damages.
A similar federal law named after Salas' son, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, was enacted by Congress in late 2022 and protects judges by shielding their personal information online.
The constitutional challenge to New Jersey's law came in response to more than 100 lawsuits against various businesses that were filed by a company called Atlas Data Privacy, which was assigned claims by over 19,000 people eligible for protection under Daniel's Law.
The companies it has sued include real estate businesses; marketing companies; data brokers and credit reporting agencies. Among the defendants are CoStar Group, Oracle Corp, Zillow and Thomson Reuters, Reuters' parent company.
In a statement, Thomson Reuters said it "has long been committed to honoring privacy and keeping personal data safe." It said Daniel's Law "attempts to serve a laudable goal" but in its current form is overbroad and violates the 1st Amendment.
The companies in seeking to dismiss the lawsuits in June argued the law was too sweeping and "restricts substantially more speech than necessary to achieve its goal of enhancing the safety of public officials."
But Platkin's office, which intervened to defend Daniel's Law, in Monday's brief said the companies could not meet the high bar of establishing the law was facially invalid under the 1st Amendmentand lacked a plainly legitimate sweep.
It said the legislature enacted the law for a valid purpose to combat an "appalling trend" of threats to judges by "empowering individuals to protect their own privacy at home, a tradition that has always coexisted with the First Amendment."
Lawyers for Atlas in a separate brief argued the data regulated by Daniel’s Law did not constitute "speech" protected by the 1st Amendmentand that, even if it did, the law was a valid content-neutral restriction that could be upheld.
The case is Atlas Data Privacy Corp v. LightBox Parent LP, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 22-4105.
For Atlas Data Privacy Corp: Rajiv Parikh of PEM Law, Mark Mao of Boies Schiller Flexner and John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan
For LightBox, et al: Kevin McDonough of Latham & Watkins
For New Jersey: Daniel Vannella of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
