Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down West Virginia Law Shielding Judges' and Officers' Home Addresses

A West Virginia law meant to keep the home addresses and private phone numbers of judges and police officers off the internet has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, a decision that has folks across the Mountain State weighing two things we care deeply about: keeping the people who protect us safe, and protecting free speech.

On Tuesday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that struck down a key piece of West Virginia's Daniel's Law. Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer concluded that the law restricts speech based on its content and reaches further than it needs to, which puts it in conflict with the First Amendment.

What the law did

Passed in 2021, the provision made it illegal for any person or business to share the home address or unlisted phone number of a judicial or law enforcement official when a reasonable person would believe that sharing it could put that official at risk of harassment or harm. It also gave the officials it covered the right to sue for damages.

How it ended up in court

The challenge grew out of five lawsuits filed by a former West Virginia law enforcement officer against five companies that run online "people search" services. He said those sites published his home address and unpublished phone number. U.S. District Judge Michael Urbanski dismissed the cases, finding the law unconstitutional on its face, and the officer appealed. The appeals court has now agreed with that decision.

Why the court said no

The ruling did not brush off the safety concerns behind the law. Judge Niemeyer acknowledged that protecting judges and officers from threats is a compelling government interest. But the court found that West Virginia's version was not narrowly tailored to that goal.

A big sticking point was that the law allowed lawsuits without first requiring that a company know it was publishing a protected person's information, and without giving the company a chance to take the information down after being notified. Similar laws in other places include that kind of notice-and-removal step. Without it, the court reasoned, businesses could be held liable for information that shows up in otherwise lawful directories and databases, and the fear of lawsuits could push them to hold back lawful speech.

The court also pointed out that the law singles out information based on whose information it is. Sharing the address of a grocery store clerk is perfectly legal, the opinion noted, while sharing the same kind of information about a police officer was not. That distinction is what makes it a content-based rule that has to pass the toughest level of constitutional review, and the court said it did not.

What it means for West Virginia

For now, the provision can't be used to sue over the publication of covered officials' addresses and phone numbers. The ruling leaves open the question of whether lawmakers could write a narrower version, such as one built around a request-and-removal process, that would hold up in court.

Here in West Virginia, where so many of us know the deputies, troopers and judges who serve our communities by name, the debate over how to keep them and their families safe isn't going away. We'll keep an eye on whether the Legislature takes another swing at it.