The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on October 27, 2026, that West Virginia's Daniel's Law is unconstitutional. This decision affects the privacy rights of judicial and law enforcement officials by striking down a law intended to protect their personal information from being disclosed online. The ruling highlights the tension between personal safety and First Amendment rights.

The case arose when Michael Jackson, a retired law enforcement officer, filed five separate lawsuits against various data broker companies. He claimed these companies violated West Virginia's Daniel's Law by disclosing his home address and unpublished phone number without permission. The law was enacted in 2021 to enhance the safety of public officials following a tragic incident where a judge's son was murdered after their address was disclosed online.

Background

Michael Jackson, representing himself and others similarly situated, initiated legal action against several defendants, including PeopleConnect, Inc. and Thomson Reuters America Corporation. He alleged that these companies disseminated his personal information through their online services, violating the provisions of Daniel's Law. This law prohibits the disclosure of home addresses and unpublished phone numbers of certain public officials if it could expose them to harassment or harm.

Jackson's lawsuits were consolidated and dismissed by a district court, which ruled that the law was facially unconstitutional. The court found that the law imposed a content-based restriction on speech, which required strict scrutiny. It determined that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve the compelling government interest of protecting public officials, leading to its dismissal.

The Ruling

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, stating, "the law was a content-based restriction on speech" and that it failed the strict scrutiny test. The court noted that while the law aimed to protect judicial and law enforcement officials, it did not provide a notice requirement before imposing liability on data brokers. This lack of a notice requirement was a significant factor in the court's decision.

Judge Niemeyer, writing for the panel, emphasized that the law's automatic imposition of liability without knowledge of the information's relevance led to excessive restrictions on speech. He stated, "Due to its lack of a notice requirement, [§ 5A-8-24(e)] of West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law is far more restrictive than its comparators [in other States] and is definitively not the least restrictive means of achieving its compelling interest." The ruling highlighted the need for laws to balance safety with constitutional rights.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for data privacy laws across the United States. By striking down Daniel's Law, the Fourth Circuit has set a precedent that could influence similar laws in other states. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that laws protecting individuals, especially public officials, do not infringe upon First Amendment rights.

The ruling may lead to a reevaluation of how states approach the protection of personal information for public officials. States may need to consider incorporating notice requirements or other measures that align with constitutional protections while still addressing safety concerns.

What's Next

While the Fourth Circuit's decision is final, there is potential for further appeals or related cases to emerge. Legal experts will be watching closely to see if this ruling prompts legislative changes in West Virginia or other states regarding data privacy laws.