A recent court decision on West Virginia's Daniel's Law is the first ruling to find a law protecting the privacy of public officials unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds -- and it will likely influence litigation in other states, said Troutman lawyers in a blog post Aug. 22. It could also lead to West Virginia amending its law, a Klein Moynihan lawyer said Monday.
A federal court dismissed a case against several data brokers accused of violating West Virginia's Daniel's Law. Judge Michael Urbanski ruled the 2021 statutory provision the plaintiff relied on -- which allows certain public servants to request data brokers delete their personal information from their public websites -- is unconstitutional.
Some state lawmakers are looking to pass legislation regulating the data broker industry in the wake of the shooting deaths last month of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband and the attempted killing of John Hoffman (D), a Minnesota senator, and his wife.
A Wisconsin bill amending a state law protecting the privacy of judges passed the legislature this week. Meanwhile, in the wake of the shooting deaths earlier this month of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband and the attempted killing of John Hoffman (D), a Minnesota senator, and his wife, a New Jersey assemblyman floated a bill to expand Daniel’s Law to additionally prohibit disclosure of state legislators’ personal information.
The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld Daniel’s Law in a decision Tuesday, rejecting a journalist’s First Amendment challenge to the statute that aims to protect certain public officials' personal information.
Defendants in a case about the constitutionality of New Jersey's Daniel's Law asked the U.S. District Court for New Jersey to halt the proceedings because plaintiff Atlas Data Privacy hasn't stated a claim.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) argued this week that opponents of New Jersey's Daniel's Law, which protects judicial and law enforcement personnel's private information, would use First Amendment grounds to oppose almost all privacy measures.
Privacy Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A possible Vermont version of Daniel’s Law (H-342) is “not dead, but it is not moving,” state Rep. Monique Priestley (D) said Thursday on Vermont Perspective, a radio show on WDEV. After the show, Priestley told us in a phone interview that another piece of legislation, her comprehensive privacy bill, remains “very much in play.”
Vermont Sen. Philip Baruth (D) and Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay disapproved of a bill aimed at protecting the sensitive information of certain public servants, including judges, during a hearing Wednesday on H-342 in the Senate Judiciary Committee.