Matthew Platkin, New Jersey's Attorney General, has urged a federal judge to reject a constitutional challenge to a state law protecting judges' personal information. The law, known as Daniel's Law, restricts the disclosure of home addresses and other personal details of judges and prosecutors.
Enacted in 2020, Daniel's Law was a response to a tragic incident involving U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. The law aims to enhance the safety of public officials by allowing them to request that private entities withhold their personal information from disclosure.
The legal challenge comes from over 100 businesses, including real estate companies, data brokers, and credit reporting agencies. These entities argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment rights by restricting free speech. Notable defendants include CoStar Group, Oracle Corp, Zillow, and Thomson Reuters.
Platkin's office contends that the law serves a crucial public safety purpose without violating constitutional rights. In a brief filed on August 5, 2024, state lawyers argued:
"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 constitutional challenge arose in response to numerous lawsuits filed by Atlas Data Privacy, a company representing over 19,000 individuals eligible for protection under Daniel's Law.
A similar federal law, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, was enacted in late 2022, further emphasizing the national concern for judicial safety.
The case, now before U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle in Camden, highlights the delicate balance between public safety and free speech rights. As privacy laws continue to evolve across the United States, this case may set a significant precedent for future legislation aimed at protecting public officials.
The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the real estate industry, data brokers, and media companies that rely on access to public records. As the court weighs the arguments, the decision will likely shape the future landscape of privacy protection and information dissemination in New Jersey and potentially beyond.